I T C LIMITED Vs. V GUNASHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's revision against the order dated 25th January, 1988 made on LA.No. 5 in O.S. No 10925/1986 on the file of the HI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. I.A.No. V was filed seeking certain amendments to the plaint in the suit. The suit itself was filed in the year 1986 for a permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 10 therein from interfering with the normal routine functions of the officer of the management and working of the factory of the plaintiff at Bangalore in the light of certain circumstances that existed before the filing of the suit. The general complaint was that defendants 1 to 10 were encouraging the workers of the factory in the guise of organising the election of office bearers of the Trade Unions to obstruct, stay in and abuse the officers etc. within the factory premises as well as from out-side the factory premises. It is also alleged that defendants 1 to 10 are persons on whose instructions persons referred to as henchmen were preventing contract labourers and horticultural employees of the plaintiff -Company from discharging their normal duties of keeping the place clean and the plants in the garden alive. The defendants have entered the defence and the issues have not yet been framed. It was at that stage LA. No. V was filed on 24-11- 1987. It appears the filing of the said application co-insided with the Court proceeding to hear the arguments on the question of vacating ex parte interim injunction granted earlier. The prayer for amendment was in the following terms.

(2.) It is seen from the order under revision that both sides relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Ganesh Trading Co. v Moji Ram [A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 484]. In that case the facts were totally different. It was a suit for recovery of money under a promissory note filed by a firm through a partner. An amendment was sought in that suit to the effect that the suit was filed by a partner of the firm because the firm had already been dissolved even before the filing of the suit. It is needless to say that the Supreme Court allowed the amendment sought for on the ground that it did not change the cause of action. While reaching that conclusion, Beg, C.J., as he then was made copious reference to the general principles underlying permission or grant of amendment or its refusal and the cardinal principle that govern the decisions of Courts in such matters. Both sides have relied upon certain observations made.

(3.) Mr. K. Subba Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondents here strongly relied upon the reasoning contained in para-graph-5 of the judgment in the aforementioned decision as reported in the All India Reporter. I do not see that in the said paragraph anything has been said which is contrary to what has already been held by the Supreme Court and the other High Courts in similar circumstances just as the law has been laid down in England as well. The Court which has to grant or refuse amendment of the pleadings should necessarily see whether the amendment has the effect of changing the cause of action and the nature of the suit. It may also see if any prejudice is caused to the defendants or the plaintiff as the case may be by allowing or refusing the amendment. If it has the effect of changing the nature of the suit and the cause of action, an amendment of the plaint must be refused. But if the amendment does not change the cause of action but does no more than place additional material facts which go to support the relief prayed for on the same cause of action, it should be allowed. The only test that is to be applied is whether the pleading of such additional facts would prejudice the defence. If the last mentioned test applies in this case, the only objection to paragraph (a) in the amendment sought is the reference made to a strike which is viewed by the plaintiff as illegal. But how that will prejudice the defendants I am unable to see. If the amendment is permitted, the defendants have an automatic right to file additional statement in which they may tell that the so-called illegal strike is not all that illegal but legal. In any event the Civil Court cannot go into the legality or illegality of the strike. Otherwise, I do not see either a change in the nature of the suit which remains a suit for injunction restraining defendants 1 to 10 from interfering with the legitimate activities of the plaintiff- Company at its factory at Bangalore and the work of its officers. Cause of action also remains the same because it is only the interference which was carefully thought out by the plaintiff was already pleaded in the first instance itself. In paragraph-II of the plaint the following has been pleaded.