1988 (12) TMI 340 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for amendment of the plaint.
2. Admission of liability by the defendants.
3. Delay in presenting the amendment application.
4. Change in the nature or character of the plaint.
5. Effect of limitation lapse on defendants' rights.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Amendment of the Plaint:
The plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint to include a letter dated September 7, 1983, as an admission of liability or a fresh cause of action. The plaintiffs argued that the amendment did not change the nature of the plaint and would not prejudice the defendants, as any prejudice could be compensated by costs. The defendants contested this, arguing that the amendment would change the nature of the plaint and affect their accrued rights due to the lapse of limitation.

2. Admission of Liability by the Defendants:
The letter dated September 7, 1983, from the defendants to the plaintiffs contained an unequivocal admission of liability for the amount due under the Bills of Exchange. This letter was crucial as it admitted the debt and promised payment by mid-November 1983. The court noted that this admission was significant and formed part of the plaintiffs' claim, reinforcing their case.

3. Delay in Presenting the Amendment Application:
The court acknowledged the delay in presenting the amendment application but found that the delay did not cause any particular loss to the defendants. The letter in question was already produced at the earliest stage of the proceedings, and the defendants were fully aware of its contents and implications. Therefore, the delay did not justify disallowing the amendment.

4. Change in the Nature or Character of the Plaint:
The defendants argued that the amendment would change the nature of the plaint from being based on the Bills of Exchange to being based on the original consideration. The court disagreed, stating that the original consideration and the Bills of Exchange were two sides of the same transaction and inextricably intertwined. The court held that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action but sought to prove the existing cause of action with additional evidence.

5. Effect of Limitation Lapse on Defendants' Rights:
The defendants contended that allowing the amendment would deprive them of a valuable right accrued due to the lapse of limitation. The court found this argument fallacious, stating that the letter dated September 7, 1983, did not constitute a fresh cause of action but was an admission of an already existing liability. The suit was not based on the letter as a new cause of action but on the original consideration and the Bills of Exchange, which were intertwined.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the amendment, finding that it did not change the nature or character of the suit and did not introduce a new cause of action. The amendment was necessary to serve the cause of justice, and any prejudice to the defendants could be compensated by costs. The court granted leave to amend the plaint and provided a timeline for the defendants to file an appeal if they chose to do so. The court also indicated that similar amendments would be allowed in related suits if no appeal was filed or if the appeal was unsuccessful.