This chamber summons allowed an extensive amendment to the plaint in a service dispute, permitting the plaintiff to challenge prior enquiry proceedings despite the original suit being based on a termination letter, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Chamber Summons made absolute; Amendment to plaint allowed within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.508 OF 2006
IN
SUIT NO.527 OF 2005
Capt.Sukhdev Singh .. Plaintiff.
Versus
The Great Eastern Shipping Company .. Defendants.
Capt.Sukhdev Singh present in person.
Mr.B.Coolabawala i/b.Hariani & Co. for defendants.
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE : 17TH JULY, 2007.
P.C.:
1. The plaintiff has been appearing in person for
arguing this Chamber Summons.
2. The suit filed by the plaintiff in person is
seeking declaration that a letter dated 20th September,
2004 purporting to terminate his service is arbitrary,
without jurisdiction, illegal and void and that he
continues to be in service of the defendants till the age
: 2 :
of his superannuation / retirement and is entitled for all
monetary consequential reliefs. Now, he has filed a
Chamber Summons seeking to amend the plaint on the basis
of the events relating an enquiry which was commenced and
he seeks to challenge the enquiry proceedings. The plaint
is sought to be extensively amended on the basis that the
enquiry also is bad and that the Court should declare it
as such. The challenge is to the charge-sheet also.
Based upon all these averments, he seeks further monetary
reliefs.
3. Mr.Coolabawala appearing for the defendants states
that the amendment would change the relief claimed and the
cause of action which is the foundation for the same in
the original suit. The suit proceeded on the basis of the
letter of termination. Now, he states that same enquiry
was initiated after a charge-sheet was issued and then he
seeks to amend when the foundation of the claim is a
termination. Now there cannot be any challenge to the
enquiry proceedings.
4. To my mind, one of the purposes of the amendment
is to obviate and avoid multiplicity of the proceedings.
There is no dispute that the original claim is also on the
basis of the employment by the defendant of the plaintiff.
: 3 :
The disputes between parties pertain to the contract and
the terms and conditions stipulating the employment. If
that be so, the action of abruptly putting an end to the
service being challenged and declaration originally
claimed does not mean that the plaintiff cannot amend the
proceedings to impugn the enquiry preceding the alleged
termination or the subsequent acts of the employer. The
amendment does not alter the basic structure and the
relief.
5. The plaintiff seek to incorporate certain
additional pleas and events leading to the same. Since
incorporating them would assist the Court in properly
resolving the controversy and avoid multiplicity of
proceedings, this Chamber Summons is granted. Hence the
following order :-
a) Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (a). Amendment to be carried out
within a period of two weeks from today. Copy of
the amended plaint be served on the defendants
within a period of two weeks thereafter.
6. M/s.Hariani & Co. waives service of the writ of
summons and Mr.Coolabawala states that upon receipt of a
: 4 :
copy of the amended plaint, the written statement would be
filed within a period of eight weeks.
7. No further relief can be granted in this Chamber
Summons. The plaintiff states that upon the amendment
being granted now and the plaint being allowed to be
amended in terms of the draft / schedule, the plaintiff
would pay additional Court fees, if payable.
8. Needless to state that merits of the contentions
sought to be raised have not been gone into and it would
be open for the defendants to raise all pleas including
the maintainability of the suit and the bar of limitation
in their written statement and neither this order shall
preclude them from doing so nor will prejudice the rival
contentions at the time of trial.
(S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an amendment expanding a plaint to include an enquiry prior to termination is permissible.
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court