9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 2067 - HC - Companies LawApplication seeking to enhance the valuation of the suit - also seeking liberty to quantify the damages, which were not quantified till the date of filing of the application - Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC - HELD THAT - It is essential to observe however that the plaintiff undoubtedly through the suit filed by the plaintiff as filed initially itself had sought injunction and damages. Setting up of the claim of quantification thus of the damages is apparently essential as laid down by the hon ble Division Bench of the Court in ZUBAIR UL ABIDIN VERSUS SAMEENA ABIDIN 2014 (7) TMI 1354 - DELHI HIGH COURT . The aspect of the merits or demerits of the amendment cannot be gone into at this stage. Though undoubtedly there is an undue delay in seeking the prayer made by the petitioner, as apparent from the record, in view of the proceedings dated 08.08.2018 between the same parties in CM (M) No. 822/2018 , the plaint instituted on 04.10.2006 has not yet reached the stage of completion of pleadings as on the date 08.08.2018 and has still not reached the same apparently, and thus the amendment to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in view of the factum that issues have not yet been framed would not come into play. It is considered essential and appropriate to set aside the order of the learned Trial Court which had not permitted the amendment prayed for - taking into account the delay and laches in the case on behalf of the petitioner seeking to quantify the damages, the amendment sought by the plaintiffs i.e. the petitioners is allowed subject to payment of cost of ₹ 80,000 to be paid to the respondent before the learned Trial Court. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for exemption. 2. Discharge of caveat. 3. Challenge to the trial court's order denying amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Exemption (CM APPL. 39064/2018): The court allowed the application for exemption subject to all just exceptions and disposed of the application. 2. Discharge of Caveat (CAV 882/2018): The learned counsel for the caveator was present, and the caveat was discharged. 3. Challenge to the Trial Court's Order (CM(M) 1157/2018 & CM APPL. 39063/2018): The petitioners challenged the impugned order dated 14.09.2018 of the Trial Court, which declined an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The application sought to amend the plaint to enhance the valuation of the suit by ?3 crores and quantify the damages at ?3 crores. The trial court observed that the claim was barred by time, filed after 11 years, and allowing it would cause injustice to the defendant. The original suit filed in 2006 sought injunction and damages, including several specific prayers for permanent and mandatory injunctions against the defendants. The plaintiff sought to amend paragraphs 14(c) and 14(d) of the plaint to reflect the quantified damages and corresponding court fees. The plaintiff argued that the non-quantification of damages was due to ill advice and referenced the Division Bench verdict in ZUBAIR UL ABIDIN [DR.] & ORS. Vs. SAMEENA ABIDIN @SAMEENA KHAN, which emphasized the necessity of quantifying damages for proper adjudication. The plaintiff cited multiple precedents, including Dr. D.K. Seth vs Dr. Durga Prasad Ray, to argue that amendments should be allowed even if belated and potentially barred by limitation. The respondents contended that the amendment would introduce a new cause of action and was time-barred. They referenced the Supreme Court's verdict in South Konkan Distilleries and Anr. Vs. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik and Ors., which emphasized that amendments introducing claims barred by limitation should generally be declined. The court acknowledged the principles laid down by the Supreme Court but emphasized that the original suit already included a prayer for damages. The quantification of damages was deemed essential for proper adjudication, as per the Division Bench's verdict in ZUBAIR UL ABIDIN [DR.] & ORS. The court noted that the merits of the amendment could not be assessed at this stage and that the proceedings had not yet reached the stage of completion of pleadings. Despite the delay, the court found it appropriate to allow the amendment, setting aside the trial court's order and permitting the amendment subject to a cost of ?80,000 to be paid to the respondent. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
