Full Text
Translation output
A-62
% 22.7.2011
Present: Mr.Sunil Fernades Standing counsel with Mr.Deepak
Pathak, Advocate, for the petitioner.
+CM No.13356/2011 (for exemption) in CM(M) No.836/2011
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) No.836/2011 & CM No.13355/2011 (for stay)
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
30.4.2011 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of his plaint had been allowed. By way of this amendment the plaintiff had sought to insert his claim for damages amounting ?3,97,094/- along with interest of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till realization.
Admittedly the present suit is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. Alternate claim for damages can be made.
The contention of the plaintiff that it was only in the written statement that he learnt that this contract has been awarded in favour of another party. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is no explanation as to why the amendment application was filed after a gap of six years when the written statement in this case was filed on 13.12.2000. The court below had noted that the law of amendments should be liberally construed; being a hand-maid justice; a substantial right which has
2011:DHC:18933 allegedly accrued to a party shall not be shut out at the helm without giving the said party an opportunity to be heard.
Admittedly, issues have been framed; but evidence is yet to be led.
Discretion exercised by the Court below appears to be fair; it does not call for any interference.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 22, 2011 nandan
2011:DHC:18933
% 22.7.2011
Present: Mr.Sunil Fernades Standing counsel with Mr.Deepak
Pathak, Advocate, for the petitioner.
+CM No.13356/2011 (for exemption) in CM(M) No.836/2011
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM(M) No.836/2011 & CM No.13355/2011 (for stay)
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
30.4.2011 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of his plaint had been allowed. By way of this amendment the plaintiff had sought to insert his claim for damages amounting ?3,97,094/- along with interest of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till realization.
Admittedly the present suit is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. Alternate claim for damages can be made.
The contention of the plaintiff that it was only in the written statement that he learnt that this contract has been awarded in favour of another party. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is no explanation as to why the amendment application was filed after a gap of six years when the written statement in this case was filed on 13.12.2000. The court below had noted that the law of amendments should be liberally construed; being a hand-maid justice; a substantial right which has
2011:DHC:18933 allegedly accrued to a party shall not be shut out at the helm without giving the said party an opportunity to be heard.
Admittedly, issues have been framed; but evidence is yet to be led.
Discretion exercised by the Court below appears to be fair; it does not call for any interference.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 22, 2011 nandan
2011:DHC:18933
JUDGMENT