Amendment of plaint to add alternative damages claim allowed where it arose from the same service termination dispute.

The proviso to Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act permits a plaintiff to seek damages in addition to or in substitution for injunction, and the court may allow such a claim by amendment even at a later stage. Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, amendment is proper where it helps determine the real controversy and does not cause injustice. Because the proposed damages claim arose from the same termination of service, did not change the basic nature of the suit, and caused no surprise or prejudice at the preliminary stage, the Delhi HC allowed the amendment subject to costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint should be amended to include an alternative claim for damages in a suit already seeking injunctive relief.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 permits a plaintiff to seek damages in addition to or in substitution for injunction, and where such relief is not originally claimed, the court may allow amendment at any stage. Amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to be allowed when it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy and does not work injustice to the other side. The proposed amendment arose from the same termination of service, did not alter the basic character of the suit, caused no surprise to the defendants, and did not prejudice them at the preliminary stage.

Conclusion: The amendment was allowed, subject to costs, and the plaintiff was permitted to include the alternative claim for damages.

---