TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD ANNA SALAI CHENNAI 600 002 Vs. TAMIL NADU ALLOY FOUNDRY CO LIMITED HOSUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant had in its objection to the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint to substitute the figure of Rs.1295.81 lakhs in the place of Rs.10.00 lakhs as the amount of damages claimed such an amendment having been sought by way of an application in July, 1998 though the suit had been filed five years earlier in March, 1993 - stated that the application for amendment was filed way beyond the period of limitation and therefore, the application ought to be dismissed. THE learned single Judge, in his order did not deal with this contention. He however allowed the application for amendment.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the application it was only stated that subsequent to the filing of the suit, records have been gathered and after the examination of the available records, the plaintiff felt the need to seek amendment and to substitute the sum of Rs.1295.81 lakhs as the amount of damages for which the plaintiff was entitled to a decree. IN paragraph 22 of the plaint it was stated that the plaintiff had not quantified the damages but as the amount would not be less than Rs.10.00 lakhs he was seeking a decree for a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs as damages. IN the prayers the plaintiff had stated that the decree be for Rs.10.00 lakhs or such higher sum as may be determined towards damages for loss. The damages for loss claimed was for the consequences of non-supply of electricity to the petitioner between 28.3.1983 to 16.10.1992.

(3.) THE illustration so given is only an illustration and the list set out in the judgment is not an exhaustive statement of all the circumstances in which the appellate Court may or may not treat the order of the learned single Judge as judgment for the purpose of appeal under letters patent. THE learned trial Judge in his case granted the prayer of the plaintiff to amend the plaint ignoring the plea of the defendants that the amendment cannot be permitted in view of the bar of limitation. THE omission to consider the plea has certainly vitiated the order and has resulted in an adverse consequence and affects, the valuable rights of the defendants. THE order under appeal is, therefore a judgment against which an appeal will lie.