T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. Vs. T.N. Electricity Board and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 7615 of 2002
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.2001 of the Madras High Court in O.S.A. No. 30 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.2001 of the Madras High Court in O.S.A. No. 30 of 2000)
Petitioner: T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd.
Respondent: T.N. Electricity Board and Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 7615 of 2002
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.2001 of the Madras High Court in O.S.A. No. 30 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7.2001 of the Madras High Court in O.S.A. No. 30 of 2000)
Judges: V.N. KHARE, CJI, S.B. SINHA & S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 02, 2004
Appearances:
Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, Senior Advocate, Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Advocate with him for the Appellant.
Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, Mr. P.N. Ramalingam, Mr.V. Balaji, Ms. Aarthi Radhakrishnan, Advocates for the Respondent Nos. 1-2.
Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Advocate (NP) for the Respondent Nos. 3-4.
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURES
Civil suit for damages -Company filing suit claiming damages from Electricity Board – Subsequent application for amendment of the plaint for enhancing the claim – Single Judge allowing the amendment – Division Bench on appeal reversing the said order – Validity. Dismissing the appeal, held since the appellate court has co-extensive powers of the trial court the discretion exercised by the High Court in rejecting the plaint was in conformity with law. (Para 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Messrs. Jardine Skinner and Co. (1957 SCR 438) (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
1. 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 from 28th March, 1983 to 16th October, 1992. The said suit was filed sometime 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 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.
2. Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, urged that the view taken by the High Court in rejecting the amendment of the appellant was erroneous. The law as regard permitting amendment to the plaint, is well settled. In L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Messrs. Jardine Skinner and Co.1, 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 amendment should be ordered and does not affect the power of the court to order it.
3. It is not disputed that the appellate court has a co-extensive power of the trial court. We find that the discretion exercised by the High Court in rejecting the plaint was in conformity with law.
4. 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.
2. Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, urged that the view taken by the High Court in rejecting the amendment of the appellant was erroneous. The law as regard permitting amendment to the plaint, is well settled. In L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Messrs. Jardine Skinner and Co.1, 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 amendment should be ordered and does not affect the power of the court to order it.
3. It is not disputed that the appellate court has a co-extensive power of the trial court. We find that the discretion exercised by the High Court in rejecting the plaint was in conformity with law.
4. 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.
