T. M. Prabhakara vs. B. Vishwanath

Facts

The petitioner, T.M. Prabhakara, is the defendant in a civil suit filed by the respondent, B. Vishwanath, for recovery of Rs. 78,28,880/-. The suit arises from a civil construction contract where the petitioner entrusted building construction work to the respondent. The contract was for a tentative amount of Rs. 61,92,000/-. The respondent claims to have spent Rs. 1,01,25,648/-, resulting in an excess expenditure of Rs. 48,25,648/-, which he seeks to recover along with GST and other charges. The petitioner's written statement contended that the respondent had already received Rs. 8,04,000/- in excess of the contractual amount. The petitioner sought to amend his written statement to add paragraphs 18(A) to (C), arguing that the excess amount claimed by the respondent was outside the contract's purview and required a declaration. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara, dismissed this application for amendment.

Held

The High Court held that the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had already pleaded a defence that the respondent had claimed excess amounts beyond the terms of the contract. Therefore, further elaboration through amendment was unnecessary, and the petitioner could question the respondent on how the excess amount was claimed during cross-examination. The Court also agreed with the trial court that since the suit was for recovery of money based on a contract, a declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act was not required. Consequently, the writ petition lacked merit and was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner/defendant is entitled to amend his written statement by introducing paragraphs 18(A) to (C) to plead that the excess amount claimed by the respondent/plaintiff was outside the purview of the contract and required a declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the proposed amendment was necessary to plead that the respondent's claim for excess amounts under various heads was beyond the scope of the original contract. He contended that the respondent should have sought a declaration to that effect before claiming recovery of such amounts. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner had already pleaded in his written statement that the respondent had received excess amounts beyond the contractual limit. The respondent also contended that the relief of declaration was not required as it did not fall within the scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as the suit was for recovery of money based on a contract.