https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194581 An amendment to a plaint adding a quantified damages claim was allowed because it merely amplified an existing claim arising from the same mining concession and allegations of illegal excavation already pleaded. The court treated the new prayer for damages, including losses said to have accrued before and after suit, as connected to subsequent developments and necessary to determine the real controversy. Limitation was held to be a mixed question of law and fact, not fit for rejection at the amendment stage, and the objection could be pursued at trial. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 was held inapplicable for want of any shown lack of due diligence. en-us Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Sep 2017 18:43:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194581 An amendment to a plaint adding a quantified damages claim was allowed because it merely amplified an existing claim arising from the same mining concession and allegations of illegal excavation already pleaded. The court treated the new prayer for damages, including losses said to have accrued before and after suit, as connected to subsequent developments and necessary to determine the real controversy. Limitation was held to be a mixed question of law and fact, not fit for rejection at the amendment stage, and the objection could be pursued at trial. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 was held inapplicable for want of any shown lack of due diligence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194581