2004 INSC 0200
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                T. N. Alloy Foundry Company Limited

                                                      Vs.

                                          T. N. Electricity Board

                                           C.A.No.7615 of 2002

                        (V. N. Khare CJI., S. B. Sinha and S. H. Kapadia JJ.)

                                                 12.02.2004

                                                JUDGMENT

1. The appellant herein is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and started its
commercial production in the year 1982. It appears that subsequently it became sick. It is
alleged that the appellant Company could not run because of non-supply of electrical energy
by the respondents herein. It is under such circumstances, the appellant herein filed a suit for
damages against the respondents for the damage suffered during the period commencing
from 28-3-1983 to 16-10-1992. The said suit was filed sometime in March 1993 on the
original side of the Madras High Court. In July 1998, the appellant herein filed an
interlocutory application for amendment of the plaint. By the said application for
amendment, the appellant sought to enhance its claim for damages. The learned Single Judge
of the High Court allowed the amendment, as prayed for. The respondents herein went in
appeal before the Letters Patent Bench before the High Court and the Bench set aside the
order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeal. It is against the said order and
judgment, the appellant is in appeal before us.

2. Shri T. L. V. Iyer, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant; urged that the view
taken by the High Court in rejecting the amendment of the appellant was erroneous. The law
as regards permitting amendment to the plaint, is well settled. In L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v.
Jardine Skinner and Co.: it was held that the Court would as a rule decline to allow
amendments, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date
of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as
to whether amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the power of the court to order
it.

3. It is not disputed that the appellate court has a coextensive power of the trial court. We
find that the discretion exercised by the High Court in rejecting the plaint was in conformity
with law.

4. For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It fails and is,
accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

1  SpotLaw