Amendment of plaint for quantification of damages is permissible when it only updates an existing claim, not a new cause of action.

A plaint already claiming damages may be amended under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to quantify that existing claim and revise suit valuation, even if the application is belated, where issues have not yet been framed and the proviso is not triggered in the same manner. The amendment does not introduce a new cause of action when it merely supplies a quantified figure to a pre-existing injunction-and-damages claim arising from the same facts. Limitation and the merits of the damages claim are not finally decided at the amendment stage. The refusal of amendment was set aside and amendment was permitted on costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint could be amended under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to quantify the damages claimed and revise the valuation of the suit despite delay and the respondent's objection of limitation. (ii) Whether the proposed amendment amounted to introduction of a new cause of action or was otherwise impermissible at the stage of consideration.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint could be amended under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to quantify the damages claimed and revise the valuation of the suit despite delay and the respondent's objection of limitation.

Analysis: The original plaint itself contained a claim for damages, and the later application only sought quantification of that existing relief and corresponding revision of court fee and jurisdictional valuation. The legal position relied upon recognized that, in a suit where damages are claimed, the plaintiff must quantify the claim, and the court may permit amendment even at a belated stage. The stage of the proceedings was also relevant because issues had not yet been framed, so the restrictive effect of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 was not attracted in the same manner.

Conclusion: The amendment to quantify damages and revise valuation was permissible and was allowed.

Issue (ii): Whether the proposed amendment amounted to introduction of a new cause of action or was otherwise impermissible at the stage of consideration.

Analysis: The amendment did not alter the foundation of the suit, which had already sought injunction and damages on the same set of facts. The proposed pleading only supplied a quantified figure to an existing claim and therefore did not create a new cause of action. At the stage of deciding amendment, the merits of the damages claim and the defence of limitation were not to be finally adjudicated, and the request was treated as bona fide notwithstanding the delay.

Conclusion: The amendment did not introduce a new cause of action and could not be rejected on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order refusing amendment was set aside, and the petitioners were permitted to amend the plaint for quantification of damages on payment of costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a suit already includes a claim for damages, an amendment that only quantifies that claim and updates valuation does not, by itself, create a new cause of action, and belatedness alone will not justify refusal when the proceedings are still at a pre-trial stage.

---