A. K. GUPTA AND SONS versus DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 796 · Decided: 10-09-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A. K. GUPTA AND SONS 
v. 
DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION 
September 10, 1965 
(A. K. SARKAR, RAGllUBAR DAYAL AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), s. 153 0. 2 r. 2 and O. 6, 
r. 17-Amendment of plaint-When may be allowed. 
The appellant filed a suit against the respondent claiming a declaration 
that, on a proper interpretation of one of the clauses of the contract ' 
between them, the appellant was enti!led to an enhancement 
of 
20% 
over the tendered raies. 
'!be plain! stated, that work had 
been 
dono 
o_nder the contract and that the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdic-
tion was Rs. 65,000, but as it was a suit for a decJara1ion only, coun 
fees on that basis had been paid. 
The appellant also reserved the right 
to sue later for the amount 
found 
due. 
The 
re9pondent 
contested 
the suit on the ground 1hat the suit was no: maintainahl·~ in the form 
in which it was framed, and disputing the correctness of the interpretation 
of the clause suggested by the appellant stated that it was ever 
ready and willing and was still willing to pay the legitimate dues of the 
appellant. The issue regarding maintainabili.ty of lhe suit was not pressed by 
the respondent at the hearing; 
and the other issue regardin~ the inter-
pretation of the clause of 1he contract having been decided by the trial 
court in favour of the appellant, the suit was decreed and leave 
waa 
gran:ed undc' 0. 2. r. 2, Civil Proc-,dure Code, 1908, to me later for 
the amount due. 
On appeal the issue as to rnain1ainability was rcsu~ 
cita!ed and 1he High <:ourr decided it in the respondent's favour because 
of the proviso to s. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and also held 
that the trial court was not righ: in granting l·>avc under 0. 2, r. 2. 
The 
High Court rejected 
a 
petition 
for amending 
1he 
pl:iint 
hy 
in-
cluding a prayer for a decree for Rs. 65.000 or such other amount as 
may he found due on proper accounl being taken then 
made 
by 
the 
appellant on the ground rhat the claim for money was time-barred long 
before the petition for amendment 1,1,·as made and because 1here w..!re no 
special circums1ancc.s justifying the graat of the am~11dment. 
HfLD: (Per Sarkar and Ramaswami. JJ.) (i) If there wa. 
any 
case \vhcre lhe respondenl was not entitled to the hcncfit of the law 
of limitation, the instant case was that one. 
It was a case in which 
the claim for money was in substance in the plain! from the beginning 
though it had not formally b·,en made and so the respondent could not 
legitimately claim that the amendment 
would 
prejudicially 
affect 
his 
right under the law of limitation, for really he had no such right. 
(801 
A-CJ 
A party is not allowed to set up a new case or a new causr. of action 
by amendment. but it is well recognised that 1,1,·here the amendment doea 
not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or r;iise a new caSC", 
but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the 
facts alrcadv on the record, the amendment will be allowed even after the 
Mpiry of 1he statutory period of limitation. 
The expression "ne;y cause 
of actio11." in this context means, a new claim made on a new basis eooa-
tituted bv new facts, and "new case" means a new set of iCc:ts. 1799 F-H; 
800 B-DJ 
The amendment was necessary for a decision of the real dispute bet-
ween the partie~ which wa~ : what were their rights und~r the contrD.ct; 
and that dispute was clearly involved in the plaint as originally framed. 
A 
\. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
, 
D 
E 
F 
G 
I 
H 
A. K. GUPTA V. D. V. C. 
797 
It was the contract which formed the cause of action on which 
the 
1uit was based and the amendment sought to introduce a claim based 
on the same cause of action, that is, the same contract and introduced 
no new case or facts. Indeed, the facts on which the money claim sought 
to be added was based, were not in dispute, and the absence of details 
of work was not a legitimate ground for refusing the amendment. 
The 
respondent had notice of the amount of claim, was fuJly aware that the 
ultimato object of the appellant in filing the suit was to obtain payment 
of that amount, and had specifically expressed in the written statement, 
its willingness to pay the appellant's legitimate dues. 
[800 F-H; 802 C, 
D-EJ 
]. T. Leash & Co. v. Jardine Skinner & Co. [1957] S.C.R. 438; Pirgortda 
Hongonda Patil v. Ka/gonda Shidgonda Patil, [1957] S.C.R. 595. 
Charan Das v. Amin Khan, L

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.