A
B
T.N. ALLOY FOUNDRY CO. LTD.
v .
. T.N. ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 12, 2004
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]
Pleadings-Amendment of-Suit for damages filed in March, 1993-
Application for amendment for enhancement of claim of damages filed in July
C 1998-Single Judge of High Court allowing the amendment-letters Patent
Bench rejecting the application-Held, appellate court has a co-extensive
power of the trial court-Discretion exercised by letters patent Bench of High
Court in rejecting the plaint was in conformity with /aw-Suit-Amendment of
plaints:
D
l.J leach and Co. ltd. and Anr. v. Messrs. Jardine Skinner and Co.,
AIR (1957) SC 357 = (1957) SCR 438, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7615 of
2002.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.2001 of the Madras High
Court in O.S. No.30 of 2000.
T.L.V. Iyer, Ramesh Babu M.R. for the Appellant.
A.T.M. Sampath, P.N. Ramalingam, V. Balaji and Ms. Aarthi
p
Radhakrishnan for the Respondent Nos. 1-2.
Ms. Revathy Raghavan (NP), for Respondent Nos. 3-4.
The Order of the Court was delivered
G
The appellant herein is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act
and started its commercial production in the year 1982. It appears that
subsequently it became sick. It is alleged that the appellant-Company could
not run because of non-supply of electrical energy by the respondents herein.
It is under such circumstances, the appellant herein filed a suit for damages
against respondents for the damage suffered during the period commencing
H
352
T.N. ALLOY FOUNDRY CO. LTD. v. T.N. ELECTRICITY BOARD
353
from 28th March, 1983 to 16th October, 1992. The said suit was filed sometime A
in March, 1993 on the Original Side of the Madras High Court. In July, 1998,
the appellant herein filed an interlocutory application for amendment of the
plaint. By the said application for amendment, the appellant sought to enhance
its claim for damages. The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed
the amendment, as prayed for. The respondents herein went in appeal before B
the Letters Patent Bench before the High Court and the Bench set aside the
order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal. It is against the
said order and judgment, the appellant is in appeal before us.
Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appelJant,
urged that the view taken by the High Court in rejecting the amendment of C
the appell~nt was erroneous. The law as regards permitting amendment to the
plaint, is well settled. In L.J Leach and Co. Ltd. and Anr: v. Messrs. Jardine
Skinner and Co., AIR (1957) SC 357 == [1957] SCR 438, it was held that the
Court as a rule decline to allow amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended
claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that
is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether D
amendment should be ordered and does not affect the power of the Court to
order it.
It is not disputed that the appellate court has a co-extensive power of
the trial court. We find that the discretion exercise by the High Court in
rejecting the plaint was in conformity with law.
For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It fails
and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
R.P.
Appeal dismissed
E
Lex