9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1564 - SC - Indian LawsSuit for the specific performance of contract - seeking to enhance the amount towards the alternative claim for damages - High Court committed any material irregularity or jurisdictional error going to the root of the matter in passing the impugned order or not - applicability of provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC to an amendment application - amendment of plaint for the purpose of enhancing the amount towards damages could be said to be hit by the doctrine of constructive res judicata or not - judgment and order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VERSUS SANJEEV BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. 2017 (10) TMI 1650 - SUPREME COURT between the same parties has any bearing on the present appeal or not - present appeal is covered by the proviso to Section 21(5) and Section 22(2) resply of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 or not. HELD THAT - One of the cardinal principles of law in allowing or rejecting an application for amendment of the pleading is that the courts generally, as a rule, decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of filing of the application. But that would be a factor to be taken into account in the exercise of the discretion as to whether the amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the power of the court to order it, if that is required in the interest of justice. In RAGU THILAK D. JOHN VERSUS S. RAYAPPAN OTHERS 2001 (1) TMI 992 - SUPREME COURT , this Court also observed that where the amendment was barred by time or not, was a disputed question of fact and, therefore, that prayer for amendment could not be rejected and in that circumstances the issue of limitation can be made an issue in the suit itself like the one made by the High Court in the case on hand. Again, in VINEET KUMAR VERSUS MANGAL SAIN WADHERA 1984 (1) TMI 348 - SUPREME COURT , this Court held that if a prayer for amendment merely adds to the facts already on record, the amendment would be allowed even after the statutory period of limitation. Applicability of decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India - HELD THAT - A coordinate Bench of this Court took the view that impleading the respondent No. 3 therein as the plaintiff No. 3 would cause a serious prejudice to the appellant. This Court took the view that no explanation was offered for an inordinate delay of twenty-seven years, which was overlooked by the High Court. Even while allowing the appeal filed by the appellant herein, the coordinate Bench of this Court observed that mere delay would not be a ground for rejecting the amendment. However, in the facts of the case, since the parties not being rustic litigants and all the respondents therein being companies and the dispute being a commercial litigation, the amendment could not have been permitted after twenty-seven years of the suit, as it would take away the substantial rights of defence accrued in favour of the appellant (LIC). The judgment and order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the Life Insurance Corporation of India has no application so far as the present appeal is concerned. The appellant herein cannot succeed in the present appeal merely on the strength of the judgment and order passed by this Court in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Order II Rule 2 of the CPC - HELD THAT - The expressions omits to sue and intentionally relinquish any portion of his claim give an indication as to the intention of the legislature in framing the said rule. The term 'sue' can mean both the filing of the suit and prosecuting the suit to its culmination, depending on the context of the provision. In the present case, the legislature thought it fit to debar a plaintiff from suing afterwards for any relief which he/she has omitted without the leave of the court or from suing in respect of any portion of his claim which he intentionally relinquishes. Order II Rule 2(1) provides that every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action - if the two suits and the relief claimed therein are based on the same cause of action then the subsequent suit will become barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. However, we do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant herein that the amendment application is liable to be rejected by applying the bar under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. Order II Rule 2 of the CPC cannot apply to an amendment which is sought on an existing suit. Applicability of principle of constructive res judicata - HELD THAT - The principle of constructive res judicata has no application in the instant case, since there was no formal adjudication between the parties after full hearing. The litigation before this Court has come up at the stage when the courts below allowed the amendment of plaint for the purpose of enhancing the amount towards damages in the alternative to the main relief of specific performance of the contract. Specific Relief Act, 1963 - HELD THAT - Section 22 has a non-obstante provision which overrides the CPC. A plaintiff who claims specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property, may in an appropriate case ask for possession, partition and separate possession of the property, in addition to specific performance. The plaintiff may also claim any other relief including the refund of earnest money or deposit paid, in case the claim for specific performance is refused. Corresponding to the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 21, sub-section (2) of Section 22 stipulates that such relief cannot be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed. However, the proviso requires that the court shall at any stage of the proceedings allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint to claim such relief where it has not been originally claimed on such terms which may appear just. The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 - HELD THAT - It cannot be successfully urged that a suit for specific performance falling under the provisions of the Act, 1963 would not be governed by the provisions of the CPC. It is, therefore, clear that to such a suit the provisions contained in Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC would apply and a plaintiff who has earlier failed to incorporate the reliefs for compensation or who has incorporated the reliefs for compensation but seeks amendment in the same, could seek the permission of the court to introduce these reliefs by way of amendment. It is important to note that sub-section (5) of Section 21 of the Act 1963 was originally introduced to resolve the confusion over whether the court had the power to grant compensation in a claim for specific performance in absence of any pleading to that effect under the provisions of the Act 1963. Prior to the enactment of the Act 1963 the Law Commission in its 9th Law Commission Report while referring to the diverse opinions expressed by the High Courts recommended that in no case should compensation be decreed unless it is claimed by a proper pleading. In Somasundaram Chettiar 1950 (3) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , the Madras High Court held that the rationale for not allowing a claim for damages in a suit for specific performance without a specific pleading is based on the principle that the plaintiff must establish its claim for damages and the defendant must be put on notice and correspondingly have an opportunity to adduce evidence that the damages claimed are excessive or that the plaintiff has not suffered any damages. The impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court should not be disturbed - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court committed any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. 2. Applicability of Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to the amendment application. 3. Whether the amendment of the plaint for enhancing the amount towards damages is hit by the doctrine of constructive res judicata. 4. Impact of the previous judgment in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. on the present appeal. 5. Applicability of Section 21(5) and Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to the present appeal. Detailed Analysis: 1. Material Irregularity or Jurisdictional Error by High Court: The court evaluated whether the High Court committed any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in allowing the amendment of the plaint. It was emphasized that courts must be liberal in granting amendments if not allowing them would cause irreparable loss and injury to the party seeking the amendment. The court cited precedents such as L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner & Co., which state that amendments should be allowed if they serve the ultimate cause of justice and avoid further litigation. The court concluded that the High Court did not commit any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in permitting the amendment. 2. Applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC: The appellant argued that the amendment application should be rejected under Order II Rule 2 CPC, which bars subsequent suits if the plaintiff omits to sue for any part of the claim. However, the court clarified that Order II Rule 2 CPC applies to subsequent suits and not to amendments within the same suit. The court referenced the Constitution Bench judgment in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal, which established that Order II Rule 2 CPC is a bar against subsequent suits and not amendments. Thus, the plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC was deemed misconceived. 3. Doctrine of Constructive Res Judicata: The appellant contended that the amendment was hit by the principle of constructive res judicata. The court noted that constructive res judicata applies when there has been a formal adjudication between the parties after a full hearing. Since the present case involved an amendment before the trial had commenced, the principle of constructive res judicata was not applicable. 4. Impact of Previous Judgment in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd.: The court examined whether the previous judgment in Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) had any bearing on the present appeal. The earlier case dealt with the impleadment of a party after a significant delay, which was not analogous to the present case involving an amendment to enhance the damages claimed. The court concluded that the previous judgment did not preclude the present amendment. 5. Applicability of Section 21(5) and Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963: The court analyzed the provisions of Section 21(5) and Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, which allow for amendments to claim compensation or other reliefs at any stage of the proceedings. The court held that these provisions were intended to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and should be interpreted liberally. The court referenced judgments such as Shamsu Suhara Beevi v. G. Alex & Anr., which supported the view that amendments for claiming compensation should be allowed to serve the interests of justice. Conclusion: The court upheld the High Court's decision to allow the amendment of the plaint, permitting the plaintiffs to enhance the amount of damages claimed. The appeal was dismissed, and the principles for allowing amendments were reiterated, emphasizing that amendments should be allowed to determine the real questions in controversy, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.
|
