Clarificatory plaint amendments and court fee defects: pre-suit mesne profits need ad valorem fee, but accounts claims may not justify rejection.

A plaint amendment that merely clarifies readiness and willingness, corrects pleaded facts, and does not alter the cause of action should ordinarily be allowed. A quantified claim for pre-suit mesne profits attracts ad valorem court fee on the amount claimed, but deficiency in court fee does not justify immediate rejection of the plaint without giving an opportunity to make good the shortfall. A claim for rendition of accounts based on an unascertained estimate does not by itself require ad valorem court fee or warrant rejection of the plaint. The amendment was permitted, and the court fee objection succeeded only to the limited extent of pre-suit mesne profits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint could be amended to incorporate an express plea of readiness and willingness and to clarify the pleaded facts. (ii) Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected for inadequate court fee and incorrect valuation in respect of mesne profits claimed before the institution of the suit. (iii) Whether the valuation for rendition of accounts required payment of ad valorem court fee or rejection of the plaint.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint could be amended to incorporate an express plea of readiness and willingness and to clarify the pleaded facts.

Analysis: The suit was at an stage and the proposed amendment did not change the cause of action or set up a new or contradictory case. The additional averment regarding readiness and willingness was only clarificatory and incidental to the existing pleadings. The correction relating to the period of partnership and the jurisdictional averments was also treated as explanatory and not prejudicial to the defence.

Conclusion: The amendment was allowed, and the plaintiffs were permitted to amend the plaint on payment of costs.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected for inadequate court fee and incorrect valuation in respect of mesne profits claimed before the institution of the suit.

Analysis: The claim for mesne profits for the period prior to institution was quantified at a definite amount and was not a mere tentative estimate. In such a case, the plaintiff was bound to pay ad valorem court fee on the amount claimed for the pre-suit period. At the same time, under the amended procedural law, rejection of the plaint could not follow immediately on that ground without affording an opportunity to make good the deficiency.

Conclusion: The objection succeeded only to the extent that the plaintiffs were directed to make good the deficiency in court fee for mesne profits within one week, failing which the plaint would be liable to rejection.

Issue (iii): Whether the valuation for rendition of accounts required payment of ad valorem court fee or rejection of the plaint.

Analysis: The figures pleaded for rendition of accounts were based on the plaintiffs' estimate and on material suggesting substantial investment in the hotel business, but they did not establish a settled or finally ascertainable amount. A plaintiff seeking rendition of accounts is not necessarily bound to pay ad valorem court fee on an estimated figure when the ultimate liability depends on judicial determination of accounts. The pleadings did not justify rejection of the plaint on this ground.

Conclusion: The objection failed, and the plaint was not liable to be rejected on the basis of valuation for rendition of accounts.

Final Conclusion: The amendment application was allowed, and the objections under Order 7 Rule 11 succeeded only in part, limited to deficiency in court fee on pre-suit mesne profits.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaint amendment that is merely clarificatory and does not alter the cause of action should ordinarily be permitted, while a quantified pre-suit claim for mesne profits attracts ad valorem court fee, but rejection of the plaint cannot follow until an opportunity is given to make up the deficiency; an unascertained claim for rendition of accounts does not by itself justify rejection on court fee grounds.

---