DINESH DEU GAWADE Vs. CAPRIHANS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and the matter is taken up for final hearing forthwith with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. Perused the plaint filed by the petitioner before the trial Court as well as the application for amendment and the impugned order.

(3.) The petitioner was an employee of the respondent. On a report lodged by an officer of the respondent, the petitioner was arrested by the police on 20th july, 2002 for the offences punishable under sections 381 and 408 of the Indian penal Code. He was in police custody upto 2nd August, 2002 and thereafter he was in jail. On 6-8-2002 he was released on bail from jail and since he was suffering from some ailments, he was directly taken to and admitted in a hospital. According to him, when he was in jail, a charge-sheet was issued by the respondent company and when he was still in hospital, the ex parte enquiry was concluded and he was dismissed from the service by an order dated 2-9-2002. The petitioner filed S. C. Suit No. 1107 of 2005 in November, 2002 seeking declaration that the ex parte enquiry against him was illegal, null and void and he also sought a declaration that the dismissal order issued pursuant to the ex parte enquiry against him is null and void and bad in law and he also sought a direction to set aside his dismissal. On 17th March, 2006, the petitioner took out Chamber summons No. 395 of 2006 seeking amendment in the plaint whereby he sought to add paragraph 7a alleging that had he not been dismissed, he would have served with the respondent for further eight years till the date of his superannuation. At the time of dismissal his salary was Rs. 9,645/- and he expected to earn Rs. 9,26,000/- towards the wages/salary till the date of his superannuation. He also sought to add prayer clause (cc) seeking a decree for payment of damages to the tune of Rs. 9,26,000/ -. Chamber summons was contested on behalf of the defendant contending that it was barred by limitation. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court rejected that application by an order dated 27th April, 2006 holding that the plaintiff was aware that he was entitled to damages, when he filed the suit and the amendment was sought to be made more than three years after the suit and, therefore, the claim seeking damages itself is barred by the limitation. The learned Judge agreed with the contention of the defendant that due to bar of limitation, certain rights have accrued to the defendants and those rights could not be taken away by making amendment. The plaintiff has challenged the order rejecting the application for amendment by filing this petition.