AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice V. Chitambaresh
The suit is one for realisation of a sum of Rs. 9,78,360/-. The plaintiff is a State Government undertaking. The defendant is a supplier of forgings to a Company based abroad. The plaintiff filed three interlocutory applications in the midst of trial. They are:
(i) I.A. No. 8799/2011 to amend the plaint by incorporating a fresh calculation table.
(ii) I.A. No. 10440/2011 to receive the account books as additional documents in evidence.
(iii) I.A. No. 8800/2011 to reopen the evidence which was closed. The court below dismissed all the three applications which are impugned in this Original Petition.
The plaintiff contends that it was misguided by the original written statement filed by the defendant. It was under the impression that the defendant would settle the accounts if the plaintiff returned the dye. The plaintiff contends that the account books are necessary to support the plaint claim. The fresh calculation table would also give a clear picture as regards the supply of forgings, account paid by the defendant and the balance amount due.
The court is not powerless to grant leave to receive documents in evidence under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court is also not powerless to allow amendment of the plaint if the proviso to order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is satisfied. It must be borne in mind that the suit is essentially based on accounts and the account books are vital documents to be looked into by the court. More over the amount arrived at by the present calculation table tallies with the amount originally claimed in the plaint.
The defendant vehemently contends that the present calculation table is incongruous with the calculation table found in the original plaint. It is also contended that the calculation table now sought to be incorporated are self contradictory. The defendant further points out that the claim sought to be incorporated by amendment has become barred by limitation. All these are matters to be considered by the court at the time of final decision in case the plaint is amended.
A remand of all these interlocutory applications for a denovo consideration with reference to the provisions of law aforequoted is essential. The plaintiff is entitled to file an additional affidavit in support of the application for amendment of the plaint. There is of course some laches on the part of the plaintiff in not taking steps earlier. Such laches can be condoned by directing the plaintiff to pay costs to the defendant. I remit all the three interlocutory applications on condition that the plaintiff pays a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the counsel for the defendant in this Original Petition within a period of three weeks from today. The order impugned will remain intact in case the costs directed as above is not paid.
The court of the Subordinate Judge of Thrissur shall reconsider I.A. Nos. 8800/2011, 8799/2011 and 10440/2011 on merit expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Original Petition is disposed of as above.