Summary
In a 1986 suit for specific performance of a 1979 agreement with LIC, the plaintiffs claimed damages of Rs. 1.01 crore. More than thirty years later, before trial, they were allowed to amend the plaint to raise the damages claim to about Rs. 400 crore, with limitation left open and LIC allowed an additional written statement. The Supreme Court dismissed LIC's appeal. Order II Rule 2 CPC bars only a later suit and does not apply to amendment in a pending suit. Constructive res judicata did not arise, and the Court's earlier refusal to implead an assignee was distinguishable. Order VI Rule 17 permits enhancing a compensation claim pleaded on existing facts, and the Court set out guiding principles on amendment.
Issues
- Whether Order II Rule 2 CPC or constructive res judicata bars an amendment of the plaint in a pending suit enhancing the claim for damages
- Whether the proviso to Section 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 prevents amendment where compensation was already claimed in the plaint
- Whether the Supreme Court's earlier refusal, in the same suit, to implead an assignee after 27 years governed this amendment
Provisions considered
- Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The rule bars a subsequent suit on the same cause of action. It does not reach an amendment sought in an existing suit. (¶¶ 49, 50, 51, 70)
- Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The rule independently empowers the court to allow amendment of the compensation relief in a specific performance suit. Liberal principles apply before trial. (¶¶ 66, 70, 71)
- Sections 21(5) and 22(2), provisos, Specific Relief Act, 1963The provisos allow a compensation claim omitted from the plaint to be added at any stage. They do not bar enhancing a claim already pleaded. (¶¶ 54, 55, 56, 58, 64, 65, 66)
Held
- Order II Rule 2 CPC bars a second suit on the same cause of action for an omitted claim or relief. It has no application to an amendment sought in the only, still-pending suit. (¶¶ 47, 49, 50, 51, 70)
- Constructive res judicata did not apply because there had been no formal adjudication between the parties after a full hearing. (¶ 52)
- The earlier decision refusing to implead an assignee after 27 years, for unexplained delay and prejudice, concerned impleadment and did not govern an amendment enhancing the damages claim. (¶¶ 41, 42)
- The provisos to Sections 21(5) and 22(2) do not exhaust the power to amend. Order VI Rule 17 applies to specific performance suits, so a plaintiff who has already claimed compensation may seek to enhance it. (¶¶ 65, 66)
- Amendments necessary to decide the real controversy should be allowed unless they cause prejudice not compensable in costs, withdraw an admission, change the nature of the suit or are mala fide. Delay alone is no bar, and arguable limitation may be tried as a separate issue. A relief-only amendment founded on pleaded facts is ordinarily allowed, especially before trial. (¶¶ 19, 30, 31, 70)
- The amendment rested on pleaded facts, trial had not begun, limitation was kept open and LIC could file an additional written statement, so the High Court rightly allowed it. (¶¶ 35, 36, 64, 71)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the order allowing amendment of the plaint to enhance the damages claim was upheld; no order as to costs.