5 The amendments are opposed by defendant No.2 mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that the proposed amendments have the effect of changing the very nature of the suit; a suit essentially for interim relief pending proceedings before the Mauritius courts is sought to be converted into a suit for specific relief and, in the alternative, for damages. Learned Counsel for defendant No.1 submits that the plaintiff’s suit in Mauritius is for recovery of money from defendant No.2 herein and the injunction sought in the present suit, which is the main relief in the suit, is to operate during the pendency of the Mauritius suit. Learned Counsel submits that the present suit, seeking interim injunction during the pendency of another suit, is, in the first place, not maintainable. Learned Counsel for defendant no.2 relies on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Bharat Aluminium Ltd. Vs. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc .1 in support of this proposition. Secondly, and at any rate, it is submitted that it would be impermissible to change the nature of the suit by amendment by converting it into a suit for specific performance of the contract of guarantee and damages, in the alternative. Secondly, it is submitted that the new claim sought to be added by way of amendment is barred by the law of limitation and cannot be allowed to be brought in.
