GOA SHIPBUILDERS Vs. SRINIVAS SADASHIV RAJE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners had filed a suit against the respondent for several reliefs. Inter alia, they prayed for a declaration that a lease be held as terminated on account of breach of the agreement entered into by the parties. A written statement was filed resisting the suit on 19th Oct., 1983. Later on, on 16th April, 1986, the respondent filed an application seeking to amend the written statement already filed. By way of the sought amendment, the respondent intended to introduce a new paragraph to the effect that the termination of the lease alleged by the plaintiff was illegal and bad in law, as no valid notice as required under the agreement and by law had been given to him. In fact, in terms of the agreement, one months notice in writing was to be given and what is alleged in the plaint is that a notice was given with an anticipation of 15 days only. This amendment was allowed by the Trial Judge, and some time after, particularly on 15th April, 1987, an application was, moved on behalf of the petitioners seeking an amendment of the plaint by introducing some new paragraphs and by saying that a fresh notice with anticipation of 30 days had been given to the respondent. By his Order dated 5th April, 1988, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ponda, dismissed the said application. Hence, the present Revision Application.

(2.) While dismissing the said application, the learned Trial Judge stated that as per the case originally brought by the plaintiff, the cause of action arose in or about Jan., 1977, when the respondent failed for the first time to submit the Statement of Accounts. He added that if the sought amendment is allowed, there will the a change of the cause of action and it will cause undue prejudice to the respondent, and further, an important right already accrued to him will be taken away. Reliance was placed in this connection, in the decision of the Supreme Court in A.K. Gupta & Sons Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96. The learned Judge, however, had not discussed in detail and given a finding based on facts in order to support his above observations that the cause of action would be changed and that great prejudice- would be caused to the respondent by allowing the amendment. It is, therefore, necessary to advert to the case brought out by the plaintiff/petitioners as well as to the defence raised by the respondent.

(3.) It is clear from the averments made in the plaint that the plaintiffs had built up their case on an agreement entered- into by them with the respondent. Under the said agreement, a Shipyard belonging to them, including a shipway, a workshop and other structures and constructions had been let out to the respondent on the payment of some rent which was t o be calculated on basis of some statements of accounts. It is further the case of the petitioners that the respondent failed to submit the statements of accounts and to pay the rents that had become due. Therefore, the petitioners gave him a notice calling for the payment of the amount due, and further, for deliverance of possession of the said Shipyard within 15 days from the date of the notice.