MUNI LAL versus THE ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 42 · Decided: 09-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
MUNI LAL 
v. 
THE ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE 
COMPANY LTD. AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 9, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 6 Rule 17. 
Pleadings-Amendment-Pennissibility of-Loss of t1uck-Declarat01y 
suit against Insurance Company-No consequential relief of specified 
amount claimed-Dismissal of-Application for amendment of plaint in the 
appellate Court for consequential relief-On the date of amendment applica-
tion relief ba1red by limitation-Amendment seeking to introduce altemative 
relief of specified amount held bad in law. 
Specific Relief Act, 1872 : Section 34--Proviso. 
Declarat01y suit-Seeking mere declarati01r-Failure to claim conse-
quential relief-Effect of 
E 
Contract Act, 1872: Section 28. 
Agreement-Prescription of limitation timr-Shorter than that 
presoibed in the Limitation Act-Such an agreement is void. 
The appellant lost his truck in October, 1983 by an Act of mis-
F 
feasance of1iis driver. The said truck was insured with the respondent-In-
surance Company and the insurance was renewed on 19th April, 1984 for 
one year. As the respondent disclaimed the liability to pay the insured 
amount, the appellant filed a suit in 1986 seeking declaration that he was 
entitled to the payment for loss of the truck in terms of the insurance 
contract. However, no consequential relief of payment of the .quantified 
G amount was claimed. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the 
suit for mere declaration without consequential relief for payment of 
compensation for the loss of truck or specified amount of compensation 
from the respondents was not maintainable. In the appellate Court an 
application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Proce-
H 
dure, 1908 for amendment of plaint seeking consequential relief but the 
42 
-
MUNI LAL v. ORIENTAL FIRE AND GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
43 
same was dismissed on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. A 
The High Court affirmed the decision of the appellate Court. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended for the appellant that (i) 
by operation of section 28 of the Contract Act, limitation of one year 
prescribed in Clause 8 of the contract was void and therefore the appellant 
may sue within three years from the date of discovery of the loss of the 
vehicle; (ii) the courts below erred in rejecting the claim by holding that 
suit was barred by limitation when the same was initially instituted within 
limitation. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The District Court and the High Court were right in 
refusing the prayer of amendment of the suit and the courts below had not 
committed any error of law warranting interference. Granting of amend· 
ment of plaint seeking to introduce alternative relief of mandatory injunc-
B 
c 
tion for payment of specified amount is bad in law. The alternative relief D 
was available to be asked for when the suit was filed but not made. 
Appellant cannot be permitted to amend the plaint after the suit was 
barred by limitation during the pendency of the proceeding in the appellate 
court or the second appellate court. [ 48-D; B-C] 
2. It is true that section 28 of the Contract Act prohibits prescription 
of shorter limitation than the one prescribed in the Limitation Act. An 
agreement which provides that a suit should be brought for tl~e breach of 
any term of the agreement within a time shorter than the period of 
limitation prescribed by law is void to that extent. The reason being that 
such an agreement is absolutely to restrict the parties from enforcing their 
rights after the expirution of the stipulated period, although it may be 
within the period of general limitation. But acceptance of the contention 
that by operation of section 28 of the Contract Act limitation of one year 
prescribed in the contract was void does not per force solve the controversy 
E 
F 
in this appeal. Proviso to section 34 of the Specific Relief Act mandates 
the Court to refuse to grant the declaratory relief if there is omission to G 
claim consquential relief. In this appeal, the appellant has merely asked 
for a declaration but not the consequential relief. The question, therefore, 
is whether the amendment could be ordered in this background. Order 6 
Rule 17 C.P.C. envisages amendment of the pleadings. The court may at 
any stage of the proceedings allow either parties to alter or amend his H 
44'. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S

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