Limitation and plaint amendment in damages claims: appellate proceedings fall within "any stage of the proceeding," but delay still required explanation.

Delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the explanation for misplacement of copying slips and the belated filing of certified copies was unsatisfactory, with negligence not adequately explained on the facts. The court also construed the proviso to section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to mean that the expression "at any stage of the proceeding" includes appellate proceedings, since an appeal is a continuation of the suit; therefore, amendment of the plaint to claim damages could be allowed even at the appellate stage. Despite that legal position, the appeal failed on limitation and the dismissal decree was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal and the certified copies deserved condonation. (ii) Whether the proviso to section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 permitted amendment of the plaint to claim damages in the course of appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal and the certified copies deserved condonation.

Analysis: The explanation for delay was found unsatisfactory. The affidavit did not satisfactorily explain how the copying slips were misplaced or what steps were taken to trace them. The copies were obtained but were not filed immediately, and the appellant also showed negligence. The principle that each day's delay must be explained was applied, and the plea that the fault lay only with counsel's clerk was rejected on the facts.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the objection to limitation succeeded against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 permitted amendment of the plaint to claim damages in the course of appeal.

Analysis: The word "proceeding" in the proviso was construed in context. Since an appeal is a continuation of the suit, the expression "at any stage of the proceeding" was held to include appellate proceedings as well. The mandatory language of the proviso was treated as requiring the court to allow amendment for including a damages claim, even when raised at the appellate stage.

Conclusion: The amendment could be allowed in appeal, and the appellant's contrary contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on limitation, and the decree of dismissal was maintained notwithstanding the legal position that amendment to claim damages could be permitted in appellate proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The expression "at any stage of the proceeding" in the proviso to section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 includes appellate proceedings, because an appeal is a continuation of the suit; however, delay in appeal must still be satisfactorily explained for condonation.

---