IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28"' DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010fTP.
BEFORE
THE HON'Bi_E MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPA!=.A',_"GO\AjOA_ 3
WRIT PETITION NO.34646/"iO1'G'(.e--M--ePt:')E'-_,_:"7'__
BETWEEN:
M/s. A.B.N.A.
No.184- A & B, Patparganj viHag_e"._
Main Market, Patparganj,~..V_ "
New Delhi ~ 110 091, " _ -_
Represented by its Propriet-rix *
Smt. Vidushi A Banerjee-~--.:j v_ «V
Represented by <§Ter:'{3.P$._A. :.H.O'Jder"*
Sri Anurup Baré,erjee_'. . ' ' _ .
Aged abOut=t53 yea"r"s',l._ b V.
S/O. late Shri-.A}D1;.;5anerjee"-- *
Residing 'at' C;ii:2~F,"?~De!h'i~.P'oIice Apartments
Mayur Vihar.Pha--SeV._-"L. * ~ f
New Delhi 4» r11O.09t;.V'Ir..
_ ' PETITIONER
(By Vsri 'S;.D.N. Pr~aflS'ad, Adv.)
Afiri 'J'a\/Eade"ve_ Ir.iVvsti'tute of Cardioiogy,
Gurup'pan_a"Pa_Fya,
Bann"erag'hatt'a road,
Eaaangaloretr 560 069
VLVRer3,reser:*ted by its Director,
._'(S_ri'-KJM.Basavaraj, Adv.)
RESPONDENT
ix”)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the
impugned order passed by the XXVI Additional City Civii &
Sessions Judge (CCH No.20), Mayo Half, Bangalore-,_io_n
LAJVolI,En CLSJflL16185/2003 dated 3oxs2Qio,-vmen
Annexure — F and consequentiy aliow the said a_p:p|ica’tijjo.nf. ‘ .
This petition having been reserved:”t’h=is:~’..dav, 0′
Court made the foilowingz
ORDERZC
The petitioner is the and is
the defendant in 0.5 i\lo…16185/200:3’upendinagjon the fiie of
City Civil Court, Bangaiiéoref passing of a
decree for reiciy/.,:’6:’:fy interest and
COS5tS. By::”on 05.02.2004, the
respondent; suit. Based on the rnateriai
pleadings,’issuesx’vxie’re and the suit was posted for
wart”: A V 0 C
_s; 2 f~ eeunonerrnedi A No.2(N127.11.2009 seemng
p’e,r.n1ii’ssivoniefipthe court to amend the piaint, to incorporate
‘.Vthe44″p,roposed piea and the additionat prayer. The
“..fl..res0p’o,nde’nt fiied its statement of objections to LA No.2 on
Finding I.A No.2 to be devoid of merit, the
/,..
trial court has rejected the same. Feeling aggrieved, the
piaintiff has fiied this writ petition.
3. Sri S.D.N.Prasad, learned advocate§’_”?3’lJ’i95i?tl’!V’l”!it?1:_’_
for the petitioner contended that, LA b.eeri”
considered in the correct perspectiye 1?-‘;,’§he’–,tr.l4a_l.’
the order of rejection pas_sed,V’K.i_n” the»”‘V’%’fa,cts
circumstances of the case, is irta’t.i_oriaVl and-illegal.z:f§Learned
counsel further contendefl _tt–i_a.t,,–“.al” :m_e,,et«i.n_g waslarranged
by the respondent the suit, in
which, the distributor has
suppiied”th’ellgciodsifin of the MOU and hence,
to avoid.’rritiltipilicintyuofélupitoceedings the application was
flied, which”-«ought’toA7.hax.re been allowed and the piaintiff
.__bei:i,gӢ.pe_tn1E,ttedtovivnrxarporate the proposed amendment in
” I4. V. K,M.Basavaraj, iearned counsel appearing
th’e__Ai-espondent on the other hand by taking me
..,’f”;iw.r_oti’igh the objection filed to LA No.2 contended that the
affidavit in support of LA No.2 is bald and that, LA No.2
w’/Lg’
was filed long after the issues were framed and tthesdit
was posted for trial. Learned counsel subrnitted th.a_t~._.the
proviso appended to Rule 17 of Order 6 CPC
and hence the amendment was hirightiy
Learned counsel pointed out that,’»r.thei;”‘su:itwas
on 15.09.2003 and LA No.2’w’a-s_.fiied’r.on 27.’17ii;r.:;.jo–o9
the proposed amendment above
the amount claimed in Vt’ii.e”S_Ui’ét, interest from
the date of suit is. exmfac-ierbiarrvecigoir.”i_irn:’itvation. Learned
counsei su the introduces
a new case €a~Vnd::-aflnew and hence the trial
cou rt was fi~g!I.:A No . 2.
5. ‘$553.! fiiing. IALAS ‘No.2, the petitioner proposed to
..inco.;€%p§’orgii;e the foVi’iowé~n’g amendment in the plaintz
V *’r’If’é=n7r’1″i’§'(3 : Thai ai’i.e1′ the ir.’1.si.it.ui.icm of the above
.’ i[ij1t_-‘, had a1’1°a11goc1 21 11’1CL’*.i1’11g to sort out
‘~._E1c1c,__risgcauct amicably and sevor2.11 meei,i11gs took piacc in
1iii,S_A’1~ c()1c111ecE.i()1’1. I)L1n’11g’ the said meeE.ings, the
it ‘t”wp121i1’1’i.iI’i’ Clélfllfif to know that M/s.Shak.ur1 Distflbuiors
has i~’;1.1pp1ied goods in cor1t.r2.1ve1’1tion of M€II}()TEt1’1dL111}
of LJ11cie1’siz-u’1di1’1g;§ ciaieci 26/27–O7¥2OOI a111ou11i.ing to
it
‘/»-I””
/
Rs.273600/-. In View of the fact that M/s.ShakuI1
I’)ist’.1’ib1.1t01’s by v1’I’tL1.e of the af()1’esaid M.O.U had
1’e11’1’1q_1.1ie}’1ed their 1’ight. the SL.1pp1it’,d had to be made
by the plaintiff and M/S.ShE1kl1I1 Dist1’1’bu101’s \-vas”‘cJ§111y
elniiled 10 5% of the e011’1n’1issi0u on the st;:;§’p.I_i'<-':–s
made. As M/s.ShakL.m Dis'11'i.b'L1t01's __E;i'i1'Ci-«.f_'m__ad.;é__' _
sL.1pp}ies in (:0nt1'aven1'i011 of the 'LVE.O '.'U iii»
c0I1nivz111c:e with the deft-m.d21I}–fi:,'"'t.he p1é:inti1'fe1iI:r;i{ied7.
for the said sum and the plailltil?is'e1'iet.i_t.1'ed"'fox
the same f1'01'I1 the def'e1e1V(1'a._1'ai.
(02) In prayer e01Lu11:1: – pra1yei'–[gt_:gi] ':afte;1' prayer
{a} andbefore p1'a3,r'e::V_{b} _ t t
"[ae1} directt the I)efen't:iaa1'tnttjepiaintiff 3. sum
of Rs.25992.O/A Thousand
Ntt1€ ottly} together with interest
@"24'%_ E:)1;:'_l-vV:r:I;.(-V).'1"}.:'1V 'e»:.}§:stA..g1':,_1,e or the Suit ml the date or
ree1lié3':x.'ti.()11". V' _
[_<eepA'i"r'1g-…i.n.«view the rival contentions and the
res:6".'d_0'f_the«-firiit petition, which I have perused, the point
for .<.:€1vrisitief}E3tiVr§'rVrV is:
Whether the triai court was justifiea’ in
rejecting LA No.2 ?
H7. Indisputedly, the Suit was filed on 15.09.2003
the written statement contesting the suEt claim was
6
filed on 05.02.2004. Issues were framed and the suit-was
posted for trial. LA No.2 was filed on 27.11.200-9″.’-~..f”jfh’e,,
proviso appended to Rule 17 of Order 6 CPC ”
that, no application for amendmentrshaipl a’fter’.,, 00
the commencement of trial, uniess”thea.c0’urt0’Co’mes_tcithé=.
conclusion that inspite of due»d,i_i’igence”the’pVar’=ty’:c0’ui’d’not ” 0
have raised the matter ,_beforeq,.t.he'”com.rnen’cement’§of trial.
Whether a party has acted’ d’ii.if_ge:nrc_e or not would
depend upon thefacts andcircurri«staVnces,.of each case.
8. cause of action for
the suit”arose:’:.with:§t’iie:”‘pu’rchase””order dated 25.06.2001
being piacied ‘i’.vi:_;:.;c;rp§):’n.dent and an invoice being
raisedby ‘the ‘vper;m5n_er~~–“00on 09.08.2001. The invoice
Rs.96,A0’00–}’——«.”Interest at 24% has been claimed
“0,9′.v.08..2’0:0;i..tin 14.09.2003 i.e., a day prior to the
date’ fiiindofirilthe suit. To the said sum, there is addition
‘of iegai. notice charges and damages. Thus, the suit was
A {0fiiedio_.r recovery of Rs.1,49,002/~ together with interest at
.___””.”24″?/o p.a from the date of suit til! realization. The affidavit
/’
,6
in support of LA No.2 is paid. The date on which the
alleged meeting took piace after institution of the su’i’t”‘has
not been stated. The respondent has
meeting having taken place. No material is tnyvitth’
regard to the any meeting have
taken place between the parties i.e.,’afte.r filing-“.i.ol.’v’tt§e sjuit. 0
As against the claim of Rs’.”1,E49_.002/¥,.V_ Vpetvittioner
proposed to claim Rs.2,:S~~9_,92_«0./He wiithtiiinterest at
24% p.a from the date realization.
The amendmentpro-pos=ed by limitation,
since the fiI’e’;rii:v..””c>n.”..–i”5″.,.oV9.2oo3 and written
statement was filed on 05.02.2004 and
LA No.2 w’a,_sllfi_ieVd _o”m:y»- 27.11.2009. An amendment,
whichiis ex–faci’e”.b.arred: by limitation, that too in respect of
inoneyi cl,e.–l.m”~-has rightly been not permitted.
V”7Tjhe’VVclaim made in the suit and the one
‘.Vpropo’sedV.inVI.A No.2 are distinct and separate. The case
V’ “..fstat;e’d_in” the piaint and the proposed amendment in LA
‘«t«’-‘NAo..2″being different, there is variance in the cause of
M;
action. The proposed plea and ciaim in LA 2 introduces a
new case and a new cause of action. The petitio.ner”g’*has.
faiied to estabiish due diligence. The ”
taken prompt steps in the matter..:*r*£.»A4ANo_4.2 teen.’
filed after commencement of triaigin
of diligence has rightly been-_rgej.ected” by’thetVr’ii.ai”’co’urt. ” V
The delay and iaches onthe the petiitioneriiin fiiing
LA No.2 has not been T4 V ‘A
10. By:.Vf.i!i;ng. is seeking a
higher in the suit. The
petitione-r”is.’c:I’nim;i’:r;:.g’–interest ‘a’t’~2’2;i°/o p.a on the amount
proposeidgin date of filing of the suit tiii
the date orregaiizationi’whieh shows that cause of action for
.–_the _ahnount_VcIaim’ed.___.i_n’ LA No.2 has not arisen after the
V”-__da.te’ of .’i_i4i’ng;’«o:f’t.he suit. There is ex–facie bar of limitation
to”thei’amou”r’a:tVgciaimed in LA No.2. In the circumstances, I
[do not ..fi”n.d.Vaxny ground for interference in the impugned
“..forder.«.._ The impugned order is neither irrationai nor iiiegai
iheing interfered with in the supervisory writ
~..;:ju’riscfiction.
,,.¥
9
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition faiis and
the same is dismissed. l\io costs.
The suit being one for passing of a
pleadings being compiete and the suit being.’at’ ,st’ag’eVo£i
triai, the trial court is directed d;eci.deA’the F3′.l!;tV:”V\1’i1fii3j_’
utmost expedition and at anyiv_e’:I_ent ‘withing ai7per§io.d_of3six
months.
To facilitate the t’i”i’aieico’u__rt{–.’tvo “¢ie’jicide. the suit within
the time aliowedgthe p§et’iti’ori:er.’sh:a~li addzuce and complete
its side of evidenice_g’__w’ith_i.n1’two: rrionthsiiifrom today. The
respondent shat! ia’d’diij.g;e coimpleteiyiiwts side of evidence
within two mointwhs from”‘t”h’e:’d~at’e«.t*ne plaintiff’s closes its
side of evidence. iiieftri.a”.i– coiurthshall hear the arguments
aljlflsVd’e’Ei’dé”.E:hE”.-Suit y&vithin’t’h”etime indicated supra.
§§;’~
3338?: