Amendment of pleadings in specific performance suits may include enhanced damages; Order II Rule 2 and constructive res judicata do not bar it.

Order II Rule 2 CPC bars a subsequent suit on an omitted claim from the same cause of action, but it does not prevent amendment of pleadings in a pending specific performance suit to enhance an alternative damages claim. Constructive res judicata requires prior adjudication and therefore does not apply at the amendment stage in the same suit. Amendment may be permitted under the liberal pleadings approach where it is needed to resolve the real controversy, does not alter the nature of the suit, and does not introduce a wholly time-barred case or irremediable prejudice; limitation may be tried as an issue. The earlier decision on impleadment and the Specific Relief Act provisions were treated as consistent with this approach.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 barred an amendment sought in an existing suit for specific performance to enhance the alternative claim for damages; (ii) whether the proposed amendment was hit by constructive res judicata; (iii) whether the enhancement of damages in the plaint should be refused on the ground of limitation or prejudice, or allowed under the liberal law governing amendment of pleadings; and (iv) whether the earlier decision between the same parties or the provisos to Section 21(5) and Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 affected the maintainability of the amendment.

Issue (i): Whether Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 barred an amendment sought in an existing suit for specific performance to enhance the alternative claim for damages.

Analysis: Order II Rule 2 operates as a bar to a subsequent suit founded on the same cause of action when a claim or relief that ought to have been included was omitted. It does not govern an amendment sought in the same pending suit. The provision addresses the consequence of splitting claims across separate proceedings, not the permissibility of altering pleadings in an existing action.

Conclusion: The bar under Order II Rule 2 did not apply and the amendment could not be rejected on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the proposed amendment was hit by constructive res judicata.

Analysis: Constructive res judicata requires a prior formal adjudication of the matter after hearing. The controversy arose at the stage of amendment in the same suit, without any such final adjudication on the enlarged claim. The doctrine therefore had no application to the amendment application.

Conclusion: The amendment was not barred by constructive res judicata.

Issue (iii): Whether the enhancement of damages in the plaint should be refused on the ground of limitation or prejudice, or allowed under the liberal law governing amendment of pleadings.

Analysis: The governing principle is that amendments necessary for determining the real controversy should ordinarily be permitted if they do not work injustice, withdraw admissions, change the nature of the suit, or defeat accrued rights by introducing a wholly time-barred claim. Delay by itself is not decisive. Where the suit was still at the pre-trial stage and the opposite party could meet the amended case by additional pleadings, the court should adopt a liberal approach and may frame limitation as an issue for trial.

Conclusion: The amendment enhancing the alternative damages claim was properly allowed and did not warrant interference.

Issue (iv): Whether the earlier decision between the same parties or the provisos to Section 21(5) and Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 affected the maintainability of the amendment.

Analysis: The earlier decision concerned a different question, namely impleadment of an assignee after long delay, and did not control the present request to enhance an already pleaded alternative claim for compensation. The provisos to Section 21(5) and Section 22(2) reflect a legislative policy against multiplicity of proceedings and support liberal amendment where compensation or ancillary relief is to be pursued in the same suit, subject to trial on limitation and merits.

Conclusion: The prior decision did not govern the present appeal, and the amendment was consistent with the statutory scheme.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's order permitting amendment of the plaint was upheld, and the appeal challenging that discretion failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Order II Rule 2 bars only a subsequent suit and does not prevent amendment of pleadings in a pending suit; amendment should be allowed where it is necessary to resolve the real controversy, does not cause irremediable prejudice, and does not introduce a wholly time-barred new case.

---