2008 (9) TMI 1022 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Amendment of Written Statement and Counter Claim
2. Law of Limitation
3. Exercise of Judicial Discretion

Summary:

1. Amendment of Written Statement and Counter Claim:
The appeal was directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which affirmed the trial court's rejection of the application for amendment of the written statement and counter claim. The appellants sought to amend their written statement and counter claim after thirteen and a half years, seeking an enhanced amount of damages. The trial court and the High Court rejected this application on the grounds that the claim was barred by the law of limitation.

2. Law of Limitation:
The appellants argued that they were suffering a loss of Rs. 20,000 per day from June 1987 and sought to amend their counter claim to include losses up to November 2000. The trial court concluded that since the cause of action arose in 1986, the amendment was ex facie barred by the law of limitation. The Supreme Court noted that courts generally decline to allow amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. However, it is within the court's discretion to allow such amendments if it serves the interest of justice.

3. Exercise of Judicial Discretion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, stating that they had exercised their jurisdiction properly in rejecting the amendment application. The Court emphasized that the appellants were making a new case by alleging continuous damages, which was contrary to their original pleadings. The Court also noted that the appellants had not provided any explanation for the delay in filing the amendment application. The Court concluded that allowing the amendment would not serve any purpose as the claim was already barred by limitation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions to reject the application for amendment of the written statement and counter claim. The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferably within a year. There was no order as to costs.