Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 2067 - DELHI HIGH COURTApplication seeking to enhance the valuation of the suit - also seeking liberty to quantify the damages, which were not quantified till the date of filing of the application - Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC - HELD THAT:- It is essential to observe however that the plaintiff undoubtedly through the suit filed by the plaintiff as filed initially itself had sought injunction and damages. Setting up of the claim of quantification thus of the damages is apparently essential as laid down by the hon’ble Division Bench of the Court in ZUBAIR UL ABIDIN VERSUS SAMEENA ABIDIN [2014 (7) TMI 1354 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. The aspect of the merits or demerits of the amendment cannot be gone into at this stage. Though undoubtedly there is an undue delay in seeking the prayer made by the petitioner, as apparent from the record, in view of the proceedings dated 08.08.2018 between the same parties in CM (M) No. 822/2018, the plaint instituted on 04.10.2006 has not yet reached the stage of completion of pleadings as on the date 08.08.2018 and has still not reached the same apparently, and thus the amendment to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in view of the factum that issues have not yet been framed would not come into play. It is considered essential and appropriate to set aside the order of the learned Trial Court which had not permitted the amendment prayed for - taking into account the delay and laches in the case on behalf of the petitioner seeking to quantify the damages, the amendment sought by the plaintiffs i.e. the petitioners is allowed subject to payment of cost of ₹ 80,000 to be paid to the respondent before the learned Trial Court. Petition disposed off.
|