A.K. Banerjee, J. - (1.) THIS revision by the defendant is directed against the order dated 6.4.1993, passed by the Civil Judge, Dehradun, allowing the application filed by the plaintiff -respondent for amendment of the plaint. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff -respondent filed original suit No. 377 of 1989 in the court of the Civil Judge, Dehradun, under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, seeking reference for arbitration under Clause 18 of the agreement dated 25.1.1974 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant -U.P. State Electricity Board. The plaintiff's case was that it was a bulk consumer of electric energy and for the supplying of electricity, it had entered into an agreement dated 25.1.1974 with the defendant. Subsequently, as additional load was required by the plaintiff it applied and was sanctioned an additional load of 412 K.V.A. on 1.4.1981. Under Clause 18 of the Agreement dated 25.1.1974, there was an arbitration clause for referring the dispute or difference between the parties for arbitration. According to the plaintiff, the defendant did not supply uninterrupted electric energy for 24 hours as agreed and the plaintiff suffered heavy loss for the period 1.6.1987 to 31.8.1988 and claimed damages which was not accepted by the defendant hence dispute having risen the matter be referred to arbitration in terms of Clause 18 of the said agreement dated 25.1.1974.
(2.) THE petition is being contested by the defendant revisionist and the matter is pending in the court of the Civil Judge, Dehradun. On similar grounds the plaintiff -respondent had also filed an earlier suit being suit No. 461, of 1985, under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act invoking Clause 18 of the said Agreement dated 25.1.1974 and dispute pertained to damages for non -continuous supply of electricity during the period February, 1983 to December, 1984. The said suit was contested by the defendant -revisionist, inter alia, on the ground that the agreement dated 15.1.1974 was superseded by the agreement dated 26.12.1980 which provides for appointment of sole arbitrator to be nominated by the Chairman of the U.P. State Electricity Board, hence the reference sought to be made in pursuance of the agreement dated 25.1.1974 was misconceived and the suit deserved to be dismissed on that ground. The court below vide the judgment dated 30.5.1992 held that the agreement dated 25.1.1974 had been superseded as stated by the plaintiff by the subsequent agreement dated 26.12.1980 and consequently, dismissed the suit solely on the said ground. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed an application for amendment of the plaint of the present suit No. 377 of 1989 by means of which amendment, the plaintiff sought to incorporate the plea that the alleged agreement dated 26.12.1980 was never executed and it appears that the same has been manufactured by the defendant taking advantage of the signature of the plaintiff on the blank proforma and to avoid any controversy the plaintiff was seeking alternative relief to the effect that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the agreement dated 26.12.1980 was validly executed between the parties then the matter in dispute may be referred to the arbitrator in accordance with the alleged agreement dated 26.12.1980 to the Chairman, U.P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow for decision in accordance with law. The defendant filed objections to the proposed amendment stating inter alia, that the same would change the nature of the case as well as the cause of action and besides the amendment introducing the alternative relief was barred by limitation and could not be permitted to be introduced in the plaint.
(3.) THE court below by the impugned order dated 6.4.1993 allowed the plaintiffs application and directed the plaint to be amended as prayed subject to the payment of Rs. 30/ - as costs.;