- (1.)J. B. Thammiah, the Trial Court rejected the prayer of plaintiff/petitioner for amendment of his plaint for incorporation of plea of independent transaction of payment of money in addition to what he had already pleaded preferring his claim on the basis of a promissory note. It appears that the Trial Court did not properly appreciate the import of the judgment wherein it was specifically held that there cannot be any inflexible Rule as to whether in suits on insufficiently stamped promissory notes, plaintiffs should, or should not, be permitted to amend the plaint so as to base the suit on the original cause of action. The consideration of such plea depended entirely on the facts and circumstances of each case. The plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit against the respondents for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- on basis of a demand promissory note stated to have been executed by the defendant. During the course of evidence when the plaintiff/petitioner wanted to mark the promissory note, the same was object to by the defendant on the ground of its being insufficiently stamped. The Court did not permit the promissory note to be exhibited vide its order dated 15-6-1992. Apparently to overcome the objections raised by the other side, the petitioner herein filed I. A. VI under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code praying for amend of plaint, by adding two sentences at para 2. He prayed that after the words, "the plaintiff therefore paid Rs. 15,000/- to defendant-1 as a hand-loan on 12-1-1985 at Gadag", the following words be permitted to be written "to evidence the said payment". Similarly at the end of para-2 the plaintiff wanted to add the words "on the original consideration". The prayer was resisted mainly on the ground of limitation.
(2.)THE purpose and object of Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guideline laid down by various High Courts and the Hon'ble supreme Court of India.
(3.)IN A. K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v Damodar Valley Corporation, it was held:
"the general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred: Weldon v Neale. But it is also well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation: see Charan Das v Amir Khan and L. J. Leach and company Limited and Another v Jardine Skinner and company. The principal reasons that have led to the rule last mentioned are, first, that the object of Courts and rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes (Cropper v Smith) and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended in Kisandas rupchand v Rachappa Vithoba, approved in Pirgonda hongonda Patil v Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil. The expression "cause of action" in the present context does not mean "every fact which it is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed" as was said in Cooke v gill, in a different context, for if it were so, no material fact could ever be amended or added and, of course, no one would want to change or add an immaterial allegation by amendment. That expression for the present purpose only means, a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. Such a view was taken in Robinson v Unicos property Corporation Limited, and it seems to us to be the only possible view to take. Any other view would make the rule futile. The words "new case" have been understood to mean"new set of ideas": Dornan v J. W. Ellis and Company limited. This also seems to us to be a reasonable view to take. No amendment will be allowed to introduce a new set of ideas to the prejudice of any right acquired by any party by lapse of time".