Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

366).

10. "Now, how does the present case stand on these principles? Does the amendment introduce a new cause of action or a new case? We do not think it does. The suit was on the contract. It sought the interpretation of a clause in the contract only for a decision of the rights of the parties under it and for no other purpose. It was the contract which formed the cause of action on which the suit was based. The amendment seeks to introduce a claim based on the same cause of action that is the same contract. It introduces to new case of facts. Indeed the facts on which the money claim sought to be added is based are not in dispute. Even the amount of the claim now sought to be mode by amendment, was mentioned in the plaint in stating the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction. The respondent had notice of it. It is quite clear that the interpretation of the clause was sought only for quantifying the money claim. In the written statement the respondent specifically expressed its willingness to pay the appellant's legitimate dues which could only mean such amount as might be due according to the rates applicable on a proper interpretation of the clause. The respondent was fully aware that the ultimate object of the appellant in filing the suit was to obtain the payment of that amount. It was equally aware that the amount had not been specifically claimed in the suit because the respondent had led the appellant to believe that it would pay whatever the court legitimately found to be due. It in fact said in the written statement. If there was any case where the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of the law of limitation, the present is that one. The Respondent cannot legitimately claim that the amendment will prejudicially affect his right under the law for really he had no such right. It is a case in which the claim for money was in substance in the plaint from the beginning though it had not formally been made."