Ravi Kant Walia vs Bubby Kent and others

M. Jeyapaul, J.—This revision is directed against the dismissal of application filed by the plaintiff invoking the provisions under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was originally filed by the plaintiff praying for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from processing, developing and releasing the prints of feature film "Shaadi Kar Ke Phas Gaya Yaar" and also from releasing an exhibition of the said film in India and worldwide without clearing the paramount lien of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has now come forward with an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking additional relief of recovery of amount through amendment of the plaint.

The trial Court rejected the said application for introducing totally a different plea for recovery of money in the suit originally laid for bare injunction.

Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that prayer for recovery of money through an amendment is based on the foundation laid in the plaint originally filed before the trial Court. Further it is his submission that the relief sought for by way of amendment has a directed nexus to the pleadings found in the original plaint.

I find that there is no substance in the submissions made by the Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. In my considered view, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend the plaint which was filed seeking a relief of permanent injunction simpliciter. A new prayer for recovery of money has been made through introduction of amendment to the original plaint. The plaintiff has now intended to set up a new case. If such an amendment is introduced, the nature of suit itself will undergo a radical change which is not legally permissible. In other words, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to set up a new case or new cause of action by way of amendment.

In my considered view, the trial Court has rightly rejected the plea for amendment of the plaint by introducing a prayer for recovery of money. There is no merit in the revision, therefore, the revision petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.