T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd vs T.N. Electricity Board And Ors
- SCC(2004) 3 SCC 392
- Neutral2004 INSC 102
- SCR[2004] 2 SCR 352
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a fresh suit on an amended claim would be barred by the law of limitation on the date of the application for amendment, the court may decline to permit the amendment, but such limitation is only a factor to be considered in the exercise of the court's discretion and does not deprive the court of the power to order the amendment if other circumstances warrant it. An appellate court possesses co-extensive power with the trial court to permit or refuse amendments to the plaint, and the exercise of such discretion by the appellate court is not subject to interference merely because the trial court exercised it differently.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The appellant herein is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and started its commercial production in the year 1982. It appears that subsequently it became sick. It is alleged that the appellant-Company could not run because of non-supply of electrical energy by the respondents herein. It is under such circumstances, the appellant herein filed a suit for damages against respondents for the damage suffered during the period commencing from 28th March, 1983 to 16th October, 1992. The said suit was filed sometime in March, 1993 on the Original Side of the Madras High Court. In July. 1998, the appellant herein filed an interlocutory application for amendment of the plaint. By the said application for amendment, the appellant sought to enhance its claim for damages. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the amendment, as prayed for. The respondents herein went in appeal before the Letters Patent Bench before the High Court and the Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal. It is against the said order and judgment, the appellant is in appeal before us.
Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, urged that the view taken by the High Court in rejecting the amendment of the appellant was erroneous. The law as regards permitting amendment to the plaint, is well settled. In L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd and Anr. v. Messrs Jardine Skinner and Co., AIR (1957) SC 357 = [1957] SCR 438, it was held that the Court as a rule decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered and does not affect the power of the Court to order it.
It is not disputed that the appellate court has a co-extensive power of the trial court. We find that the discretion exercise by the High Court in rejecting the plaint was in conformity with law.
For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free