Plaint amendment for quantified damages allowed where it merely amplifies the same cause of action and real controversy.

An amendment to a plaint adding a quantified damages claim was allowed because it merely amplified an existing claim arising from the same mining concession and allegations of illegal excavation already pleaded. The court treated the new prayer for damages, including losses said to have accrued before and after suit, as connected to subsequent developments and necessary to determine the real controversy. Limitation was held to be a mixed question of law and fact, not fit for rejection at the amendment stage, and the objection could be pursued at trial. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 was held inapplicable for want of any shown lack of due diligence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment of the plaint adding a quantified damages claim and corresponding prayer, sought after commencement of trial, was liable to be rejected as barred by limitation or for want of due diligence under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The amendment was found to be an amplification of the existing case based on the same mining concession and allegations of illegal excavation already pleaded in the suit. The added pleadings quantified the alleged loss and sought damages in respect of ore said to have been removed before and after institution of the suit, and were held to be connected with subsequent developments. The question of limitation was treated as a mixed question of law and fact, not suitable for rejection at the amendment stage, and the party opposing amendment was left free to raise that objection at trial. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 was held inapplicable because the amendment was considered necessary for determining the real controversy and there was no lack of due diligence shown on the facts.

Conclusion: The amendment was properly allowed and no interference was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment of pleadings should be allowed if it is necessary for deciding the real controversy and merely quantifies or amplifies an existing claim arising from the same cause of action, while a limitation objection to such amendment ordinarily remains open to be decided at trial as a mixed question of law and fact.

---