Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
M/S. C.S. COMPANY & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/10/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This special leave petition arises from the order of
the learned single judge made on August 2, 1996 in CRP No.
476/96.
The admitted position is that the respondent had filed
the suit for settlement of accounts on the basis of a
contract dated may 12,1983. He also sought for decree
jointly and severally against the defendants 2 to 4 or
against their estate for the amount due; for a declaration
that the respondent is entitled to recover all the loss the
damages form defendants and their assets when the same was
ascertained, as been filed on February 15,1995 under Order
VI, Rule 17, CPC for amendment of the plaint for converting
the suit into one for damages quantifying the damages as
stated in para 8A. The trial Court dismissed the
application. In the revision, the High Court allowed it.
Thus, this special leave petition.
It is contended for the petitioner that a suit merely
for settlement of accounts and declaration that the
respondent is entitled to recover damages form the defendant
cannot be converted into a suit for damages in particular
after the right of recovery is barred by limitation, i.e., a
valuable right had accrued to the petitioners. The High
Court, therefore, is not right in granting the amendment. We
find no force in the contention. It is seen that what is
sought to be amended is paragraph 8A and the suit is to
recover the quantified amount as damages based upon the
original cause of action, namely, the contract referred to
hereinbefore. It is seen that the original suit was for
settlement of accounts and fastening a liability jointly and
severally against all the defendants and the assets and
estates. The relief originally sought for also was to
declare the liability of the damages to be ascertained and
recoverable from them. Thus, it could be seen that as per
the original cause of action, the relief now sought for was
available in the suit itself. Instead of settlement of
account, the respondent is now seeking for damages against
the respondent and the damages instead of being ascertained
were quantifies in paragraph 8A of the plaint. The amendment
does not constitute addition of any new cause of action. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
respondent is not introducing any new cause of action nor it
would change the cause of action as originally pleaded.
Thus, there is neither change of cause of action nor
introduction of any new cause of action after the bar of
limitation. The High Court was, therefore, right in allowing
the petition for amendment of the plaint.
The special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.