: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1069 OF 2008 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1069 OF 2008 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1069 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT NO.258 OF 1999 SUIT NO.258 OF 1999 SUIT NO.258 OF 1999 Amritlal Chemaux Limited .. Plaintiffs. Versus Dyetex Corporation .. Defendants. Mr.V.P.Vaze for the plaintiffs. Mr.F.Dubhash i/b.Desai & Chinoy for defendants. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 4th September, 2008. DATE : 4th September, 2008. DATE : 4th September, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. The plaintiffs instituted the suit in which the defendants filed written statement. This chamber summons is taken out to amend the written statement which is already on record. The nature of the amendment is set out in paragraph 3A which the defendants want to insert their original statement as per Schedule-A. 2. I have heard learned Advocates on both the sides. The Written statement in no uncertain terms alleges that the second consignment sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants was of an inferior quality. The percentage purity of the goods which were sold to the : 2 : defendants is specifically not set out. In order to ascertain whether the amendment to the written statement is necessary, effort was made with the assistance of learned Advocates on both the sides to ascertain whether the amendment could exceed the scope of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and after having done that, I am inclined to observe that the amendment can be granted as it is within the parameters of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. A close perusal of the amendment at Schedule-A would go to show that the defendants would like to throw light on the question of percentage purity of the goods which were sold by the plaintiffs to the defendants. This percentage purity is material because defendants have contended that after they realised that the goods received by them were not 100%, they thought of not further forwarding goods to their clients. 4. In my view, the amendment is sought to be done for the purposes of throwing light on the things which have taken place and to bring on record the percentage purity of the goods which were sold and delivered. It is true that in the written statement, the defendants have not : 3 : specifically stated the percentage purity and it is in the light of that, the present paragraph 3A will have to be treated as the defense which was already taken by them in terms of figures and statistics. 5. In my view, if the amendment is granted, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs because plaintiffs are fully aware of the defence of the defendants that the goods sold and delivered to the defendants were not of perfect purity. Hence, no prejudice is going to suffer by the plaintiffs. At the stage of hearing, learned Advocate Mr.Vaze appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs had relied upon the judgement in the case of North Eastern Railway Administration, North Eastern Railway Administration, North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v/s. Bhagwan Das (D) by L.Rs. reported in 2008 Gorakhpur v/s. Bhagwan Das (D) by L.Rs. reported in 2008 Gorakhpur v/s. Bhagwan Das (D) by L.Rs. reported in 2008 ALL SCR 1469 ALL SCR 1469 ALL SCR 1469 to contend that the court should consider the two aspects, namely, i) whether the amendment if granted would not result in injustice to the other side (in the present case - plaintiffs) and ii) the amendment is necessary for the purposes of determining the real question of controversy between the parties. 6. I have considered these two aspects and I am inclined to observe that both these conditions are being : 4 : fulfilled. In my view, the amendment, if granted, would not cause any injury to the plaintiffs, particularly, because it has been the case of the plaintiffs that the goods of proper quality were sold to the defendants. Learned Advocate Mr.Vaze has further relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Chander Chander Chander Kanta Bansal v/s.Rajinder Singh Anand reported in 2008(4) Kanta Bansal v/s.Rajinder Singh Anand reported in 2008(4) Kanta Bansal v/s.Rajinder Singh Anand reported in 2008(4) ALL MR 423. ALL MR 423. ALL MR 423. The thrust of the said judgement was with reference to the operation of law. The present suit came to be filed in the year 1999 and that is how the present plaint came to be lodged on 14.12.1998 and, therefore, the law as amended w.e.f. 1.7.2000 would not be applicable to the facts of this case. It is in these circumstances, the judgement in the case of Chander Kanta Bansal (supra) Chander Kanta Bansal (supra) Chander Kanta Bansal (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of this case. Lastly, learned Advocate Mr.Vaze contended that in the present case, plaintiffs have tendered evidence affidavit and compilation of documents in the court and now defendants cannot be permitted to introduce new case. This argument cannot be accepted because it has been the case of the plaintiffs that they sold to the defendants goods of the highest purity i.e. 100%. In my view, amendment is being introduced to place before the court facts with reference to the purity of the goods which were : 5 : sold and delivered to the defendants. 7. In my view, the amendment is required to be granted in the interest of justice. I am inclined to saddle the defendants with the costs quantified at Rs.1,000/- for grant of this amendment. Hence the order :- O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R i) Chamber summons No.1069 of 2008 is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c). ii) Defendants to pay to plaintiffs costs quantified at Rs.1,000/- towards this chamber summons. Defendants to carry out amendment to the written statement on or before 15.9.2008. Defendants to serve amended copy of the written statement upon plaintiffs’ Advocate on or before 22.9.2008. 8. Adjourned to 25.9.2008 for directions. : 6 : (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.)