CONTAINER MOVEMENT BOMBAY TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. CAPITAL CARGO AND CONTAINER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is for the amendment of the plaint filed under the summary procedure contained in Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It has comeat an awkward stage of the litigation, inasmuch as the defendant has filed its application seeking Leave to Defend the suit. The plaintiff prays that the amendment application should be disposed off forthwith but the defendant has pressed that since his application is anterior in time, it should be considered first. The defendant has also maintained that the plaint cannot be amended as this procedure is beyond the contemplation of Order XXXVII. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the parties have invited the Courts decision on this interesting question and have jointly submitted that the two applications, on merits, be taken up later.

(2.) In Suit No. 1811/89 entitled Prakash Sharma v. D.DA. & Ors. 1 had, on 3.3.2000, permitted the petitioner to amend his objections filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, well beyond the stipulated period of limitation, that is, thirty days. It was my view that the law relating to amendments of pleadings no doubt encourages to adoption of a liberal approach by the Court. Amendments have always been allowed unless it places the opposite party in a position where it cannot be adequaitely compensated by costs or where it is an attempt to introduce a new case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a number of precedents on this issue, but I intend to consider here only those which contemplate situations where the amendment is sought for after the period of limitation has run out. A learned Single Judge of this Court has followed the ratio of L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd., & Am. v. Messrs, Jardine Skinner & Co., AIR 1957 SC 357 and has affirmed in Kartar Singh v. Sir Sobha Singh & Sons, 1974 Rajdhani Law Reporter 491 that there is no impregnable barrier in.allowing an amendment even post expiry of the period of limitation. In LJ. Leach's case (supra) the amendment was allowed because justice of the case required it, and the following views were expressed :

(3.) Although the question of limitation would not arise in the present instance since the amendment is not intended to be made to the application for Leave to Defend the summary suit, this problem had also been considered. After perusing the decisions in Allahabad Law Journal Co. Ltd v. Mis. Skyways Construction Corporation & Ors,, AIR 1992 Delhi 9,Bhoganadham Seshaiah v. Budhi Veerabhaduryya (died) & Ors., AIR 197? AP 134, Ram Swan v. Misrilal, 1984 Rajdhani Law Reporter 149, Mis. Bashista Bros, v. Munshi Lal Om Prakash, 1973 Rajdhani Law Reporter 549, Shiv Singh v. NPCC Ltd., 1998 VI AD (Delhi), V.K. Dewan & Co. v. MCD& Am., 81 (1999) DLT 299, UOI v. Vi]ay Construction, AIR 1981 Delhi 193, Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering division Pun v. M.ls. Construction India, AIR 1982 Orissa 18, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Durgaram Prasad, AIR1984AP 14, I has allowed amendments to be carried out even to the time-bound Objections, after limitation had expired. In my view, therefore, there is no legal impediment in even permitting amendments to the application for Leave to defendant after the expiry of limitation.