IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.NO.2867 OF 2010 Date:17.03.2011 Between:- Lalam Appa Rao ..Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff And The Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam and another .. Respondents/Respondents/Defendants ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 05.03.2010 in I.A.No.272 of 2009 in O.S.No.11 of 2008 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint was dismissed. 2. It is stated in the affidavit that the Court granted injunction on 15.02.2008 restraining the respondents from allotting Kalavani Auditorium to any person except to the petitioner on 28.02.2008 for performing his son’s marriage. After receiving the Court’s order, the petitioner applied to the respondents on 19.02.2008 stating that the Court gave direction for allotment of Kalavani Auditorium on 28.02.2008 for performing his son’s marriage and further, requested them to leave necessary instructions to the concerned, for which the respondents have addressed a letter stating that they had already allotted Kalavani Auditorium to some other person and the allottee paid the amount on 26.11.2007 and the confirmation was already given to. As the respondents disobeyed the orders of the trial Court, the petitioner filed I.A.No.272 of 2009 seeking amendment of the pleadings so as to include the damages. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, came to conclusion that the respondents had already allotted Kalavani Auditorium to third party, who had paid the required amount on 26.11.2007 and that the allottee has already disbursed the wedding cards to the friends and relatives and that the petitioner has not paid any necessary charges on or before 26.11.2007 and if the petition is allowed, it would create a new cause of action and accordingly dismissed the same. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, being an employee of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust, preference should be given to the petitioner in allotting Kalavani Auditorium for the purpose of performing his son’s marriage and that in spite of granting direction by the Court below, the respondents deliberately violated the injunction order and allotted Kalavani Auditorium to third party, thereby, the petitioner sustained huge mental agony and irreparable injury, which necessitated him to amend the pleadings so as to claim the damages and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that even prior to the receipt of injunction order, Kalavani Auditorium was allotted to third party and that the third party already paid the requisite amount and that if really the petitioner wanted the Auditorium, he would have paid the advance amount for reservation of the Auditorium, but such amount has not been paid and therefore, the trial Court, after considering the material on record, rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The factual matrix is not in dispute. Admittedly, the trial of the suit has not been commenced. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the claim for damages is a subsequent event and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to amend the reliefs so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. He placed a strong reliance on the decision reported in Ragu Thilak D.John vs. S.Rayappan and others[1], wherein it is held thus: “If the aforesaid test is applied in the instant case, the amendment sought could not be declined. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case, as is evident from the perusal of averments made in paras 8(a) to 8(f) of the plaint which were sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. We feel that in the circumstances of the case the plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject-matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for.” The above decision has no application to the present facts on hand for the reason that in that case, the plaintiff therein filed a suit for injunction not to demolish the compound wall. Thereafter, it seems that the compound wall was allegedly demolished by the respondents after filing of the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff therein claimed damages for demolition of the wall. In such circumstances, the amendment was allowed. But such is not the case here. It is specifically stated in the counter filed by respondent No.2 that the auditorium was already allotted to third party, who booked the auditorium on payment of required amount on 26.11.2007, and confirmation order was issued in favour of allottee. Unless it is shown that requisite amount is paid by the plaintiff for booking the auditorium prior to allotment to third party, the question of claiming damages may not arise. There is no concluded contract between plaintiff and defendants. When there is no contract or agreement between the parties, the question of claiming damages does not arise. There is no prima facie breach of contract or agreement. In this case, because the affidavit is silent as to on what date the petitioner approached the respondents to reserve the Auditorium and whether he addressed any letter to the Auditorium authorities to enable him to perform his son’s marriage and that in spite of requesting the respondents, they have not allotted the Auditorium to him. Therefore, in the absence of these allegations, the amendment seeking to claim damages does not arise. Therefore, the impugned order as regards the dismissal of the petition seeking amendment claiming damages needs no interference by this Court. 7. With regard to the amendment sought to cause title, it is not in dispute that the first defendant is the Visakhapatnam Port Trust Board, represented by its Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam. That can be allowed because it will not change the cause of action or structure of the suit. Hence, the impugned order insofar as dismissing the petition to amend the prayer with regard to the cause title is set aside and the amendment is allowed. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. However, it is left open to the petitioner to avail the remedies available to him under law. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 17th March, 2011 AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.NO.2867 OF 2010 Date:17.03.2011 AMD [1] (2001)2 Supreme Court Cases 472