Mandatory amendment for damages in injunction suits overrides general pleading rules; later procedural changes do not apply retrospectively.

A plaint amendment to add a damages claim in a suit for injunction is treated as mandatory under Section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act, because the provision requires the court to allow such amendment on just terms when damages were omitted from the original plaint. The special provision prevails over the general amendment rule, so refusal of the amendment on that ground is unsustainable. The amended Order VI Rule 17 CPC introduced in 2002 does not apply retrospectively to a suit filed in 1995, but that did not change the result because Section 40(2) independently required allowance of the amendment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an amendment to the plaint for including a claim for damages in a suit for injunction had to be allowed under Section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. (ii) Whether the amended Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied to a suit instituted before the 2002 amendment.

Issue (i): Whether an amendment to the plaint for including a claim for damages in a suit for injunction had to be allowed under Section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Analysis: Section 40(2) contains a specific proviso that, where damages were not claimed in the plaint, the Court shall at any stage of the proceedings allow amendment of the plaint on just terms to include such claim. The provision is mandatory in nature and leaves no discretion to refuse amendment merely because the claim was omitted in the original plaint. In a suit for permanent or prohibitory injunction, the claim for damages is treated as inherent, and the special provision prevails over the general law of amendment.

Conclusion: The amendment to include the claim for damages had to be allowed and the trial court's refusal on this ground was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the amended Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied to a suit instituted before the 2002 amendment.

Analysis: The suit had been filed in 1995. The governing principle applied by the Court was that the amended procedural rule inserted in 2002 would not govern pleadings filed before its commencement. The amendment application therefore had to be examined under the unamended provision, although that issue did not alter the result because Section 40(2) independently required allowance of the amendment.

Conclusion: The amended Order VI Rule 17 did not apply to the suit, but this did not affect the grant of amendment.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the order refusing amendment was set aside, and the plaint amendment for claiming damages was permitted on costs, with consequential directions for further proceedings before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute mandates allowance of amendment to include a damages claim in a suit for injunction, that mandate overrides the general amendment rule, and a later procedural amendment will not apply retrospectively to pleadings filed before its commencement.

---