9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Amendment of the plaint at the appellate stage. 2. Period of limitation for a suit under Order XXI, Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Discretionary power of the court to allow amendments. 4. Impact of amendments on the rights of the defendant. Detailed Analysis: 1. Amendment of the plaint at the appellate stage: The High Court of Bombay allowed an amendment of the plaint at the appellate stage, subject to certain conditions. The appellant contended that the learned Judges of the High Court were wrong in allowing the amendment at such a late stage. The High Court justified the amendment by emphasizing the principles of substantial justice and compensating the first defendant with a drastic order of costs in his favor. The High Court observed: "We realise that by doing what we propose to do we may deprive the first defendant of a very valuable right which he claims he has acquired, namely, that of pleading a bar of limitation against the amended plaint, but we are guided more in this matter by regard to the principles of substantial justice." 2. Period of limitation for a suit under Order XXI, Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The appellant argued that the period of limitation for a suit under Order XXI, Rule 103 had expired before the application for amendment was made on March 29, 1950. The High Court noted that the limitation period had already expired before November 20, 1948, when the appellant first pointed out the defect in the plaint. The Supreme Court referenced a similar case, L. J. Leach & Co. v. Jardine Skinner & Co., where it was stated: "It is no doubt true that courts would, as a rule, decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the power of the court to order it, if that is required in the interests of justice." 3. Discretionary power of the court to allow amendments: The appellant did not dispute the appellate court's jurisdiction to allow the amendment but argued that the power should not have been exercised in this case. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's discretion, referencing Charan Das v. Amir Khan, which laid down that "though there was full power to make the amendment, such a power should not, as a rule be exercised where the effect was to take away from a defendant, a legal right which had accrued to him by lapse of time; yet there were cases where such considerations were outweighed by the special circumstances of the case." 4. Impact of amendments on the rights of the defendant: The appellant contended that the amendment placed him at a disadvantage by depriving him of the right to plead a bar of limitation. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the amendments did not introduce a new case but rather removed a defect in the plaint. The Court referenced Batchelor J.'s judgment in Kisandas Rupchand's case, which stated: "All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties." The Supreme Court concluded that the amendments did not cause any injustice to the appellant and were necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to allow the amendment of the plaint. The Court emphasized that the amendments were necessary for substantial justice and did not introduce a new case or cause any injustice to the appellant. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
