A.B.N.A. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX AND SMT. VIDUSHI A. BANERJEE REPRESENTED BY HER G.P.A. HOLDER SRI ANURUP BANERJEE, S/O. LATE SHRI A.D. BANERJEE Vs. SRI JAYADEVA INSTITUTE OF CARDIOLOGY REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is the Plaintiff and the Respondent is the Defendant in O.S No. 16185/2003 pending on the file of City Civil Court,. Bangalore. The suit is for passing of a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,49,002/ - with interest and costs. By filing written statement on 05.02.2004, the Respondent has contested the suit. Based on the material pleadings, issues were framed and the suit was posted for trial

(2.) PETITIONER filed I.A No. 2 on 27.11.2009 seeking permission of the court to amend the plaint, to incorporate the proposed plea and the additional prayer. The Respondent filed its statement of objections to I.A No. 2 on 02.02.2010. Finding I.A No. 2 to be devoid of merit, the trial court has rejected the same. Feeling aggrieved, the Plaintiff has filed this writ petition.

(3.) SRI K.M. Basavaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent on the other hand by taking me through the objection filed to I.A No. 2 contended that the affidavit in support of I.A No. 2 is bald and that, I.A No. 2 was filed long after the issues were framed and the suit was posted for trial. Learned Counsel submitted that the proviso appended to Rule 17 of Order 6 Code of Code of Civil Procedure is attracted and hence the amendment was rightly not permitted. Learned Counsel pointed out that, the suit was instituted on 15.09.2003 and I.A No. 2 was filed on 27.11.2009 and the proposed amendment being a claim over and above the amount claimed in the suit, that too with interest from the date of suit is ex -facie barred hy limitation. Learned Counsel submits: that the proposed amendment introduces a new case and a new cause of action and hence the trial court was justified in rejecting I.A No. 2.