http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: M/S. C.S. COMPANY & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This special  leave petition  arises from  the order of the learned  single judge  made on August 2, 1996 in CRP No. 476/96.      The admitted  position is that the respondent had filed the suit  for settlement  of accounts  on  the  basis  of  a contract dated  may  12,1983.  He  also  sought  for  decree jointly and  severally against  the defendants  2  to  4  or against their  estate for  the amount due; for a declaration that the  respondent is entitled to recover all the loss the damages form  defendants and  their assets when the same was ascertained, as  been filed  on February 15,1995 under Order VI, Rule  17, CPC for amendment of the plaint for converting the suit  into one  for damages  quantifying the  damages as stated  in   para  8A.   The  trial   Court  dismissed   the application. In  the revision,  the High  Court allowed  it. Thus, this special leave petition.      It is  contended for  the petitioner that a suit merely for  settlement   of  accounts   and  declaration  that  the respondent is entitled to recover damages form the defendant cannot be  converted into  a suit  for damages in particular after the right of recovery is barred by limitation, i.e., a valuable right  had accrued  to the  petitioners.  The  High Court, therefore, is not right in granting the amendment. We find no  force in  the contention.  It is  seen that what is sought to  be amended  is paragraph  8A and  the suit  is to recover the  quantified amount  as damages  based  upon  the original cause  of action,  namely, the contract referred to hereinbefore. It  is seen  that the  original suit  was  for settlement of accounts and fastening a liability jointly and severally against  all the  defendants and  the  assets  and estates. The  relief  originally  sought  for  also  was  to declare the  liability of  the damages to be ascertained and recoverable from  them. Thus,  it could  be seen that as per the original  cause of action, the relief now sought for was available in  the suit  itself.  Instead  of  settlement  of account, the  respondent is  now seeking for damages against the respondent  and the damages instead of being ascertained were quantifies in paragraph 8A of the plaint. The amendment does not constitute addition of any new cause of action. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

respondent is not introducing any new cause of action nor it would change  the cause  of action  as  originally  pleaded. Thus, there  is  neither  change  of  cause  of  action  nor introduction of  any new  cause of  action after  the bar of limitation. The High Court was, therefore, right in allowing the petition for amendment of the plaint.      The special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.