1965 (9) TMI 68 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refusal of the High Court to permit amendment of the plaint.
2. Interpretation of the contract clause regarding the increase in labor rates.
3. Maintainability of the suit under the Specific Relief Act, 1877.
4. Application of the statute of limitation to the amendment of the plaint.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refusal of the High Court to Permit Amendment of the Plaint:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in refusing the appellant's request to amend the plaint. The appellant sought to include a claim for Rs. 65,000, which was based on the same contract and facts already pleaded. The amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but was merely an additional approach to the same facts. The Court emphasized that amendments should be allowed when they are necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties and do not cause injustice to the other party.

2. Interpretation of the Contract Clause Regarding the Increase in Labor Rates:
The dispute centered on the interpretation of a clause in the contract that allowed for an increase in labor rates if the prevailing rate increased by more than 10%. The appellant claimed a 20% increase, while the respondent contended that only a part of the increase was due. Both the trial court and the Supreme Court found in favor of the appellant, interpreting the clause to entitle the appellant to the full 20% increase.

3. Maintainability of the Suit Under the Specific Relief Act, 1877:
The High Court had dismissed the suit on the grounds that it was not maintainable under the proviso to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, which requires that a suit for a declaration must include a claim for consequential relief. The Supreme Court did not challenge this view but found that the High Court should have allowed the amendment to include the claim for money, as the real dispute was already framed in the original plaint.

4. Application of the Statute of Limitation to the Amendment of the Plaint:
The amendment was sought after the statutory period of limitation for a money claim had expired. The Supreme Court cited precedents such as Charan Das v. Amir Khan and L. J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co., which allow amendments even after the limitation period if the amendment does not introduce a new cause of action but is merely a different approach to the same facts. The Court found that the amendment was necessary for deciding the real dispute and that the respondent was already aware of the appellant's claim for money.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the High Court to permit the amendment and then decide the correct interpretation of the disputed clause. If necessary, the High Court or the trial court should ascertain the amount due through a proper inquiry. The appellant was awarded costs in the Supreme Court, and the question of subsequent costs was left to the High Court. The judgment of the High Court was set aside only in so far as it refused the amendment, but the rest of the judgment stood.