Madras HC Upholds Employee’s Trial-Stage Amendment Seeking To Declare 2021 Termination Letter Void in ₹1-Crore Damages Suit

The plaintiff sued for ₹1 crore in damages and consequential reliefs.

After issues had been framed and the matter had reached the trial stage, with PW1 in the witness box, the plaintiff applied to amend the plaint to add an averment and a prayer for a declaration that its termination letter dated 9 March 2021 was null and void. The Single Judge allowed the amendment subject to costs of ₹5,000. The first defendant appealed that order.

The Court applied the principle that an amendment necessary to determine the real questions in controversy may be allowed at any stage, provided it does not cause prejudice to the opposing party.

Relying on Duggireddy Narayana Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanaraya Reddy, reported in the judgment as (2001) 8 SC 115, the Court stated that an amendment should generally be allowed unless it would be unjust, cause prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs or otherwise, or deprive the opposing party of a right accrued through the passage of time. The judgment does not identify a specific statutory provision.

The Court considered the proposed declaration and accompanying averment in the context of the existing damages claim. It accepted the plaintiff’s explanation that their omission was inadvertent and found the amendment explanatory: it neither introduced a new cause of action nor altered the existing one, and was intended to assist in determining the compensation claimed.

The Court also found that the amendment would not require the issues to be recast or otherwise affect the trial, and that no uncompensable prejudice or loss of an accrued right would result; the costs imposed by the Single Judge addressed any prejudice.

It dismissed the appeal, upheld the amendment subject to the ₹5,000 costs ordered below, directed the parties to bear their own costs in the appeal, and closed any connected civil miscellaneous petitions.