amendment of plaint - after 9 years of the suit - trial not commenced - allowed = suit for specific performance - After a period of about nine years - to add compensation in case specific performance was not allowed, and a figure of Rs. 50,00,000/- plus Rs. 15,00,00,000/- for mental agony etc. was claimed in the proposed amendment. - Both the Bombay City Civil Court as well as the High Court have dismissed the amendment filed on the ground that there was no reason as to why such amendment was not made earlier, and as to why it was not claimed in the original plaint. = After the judgment of this Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. vs. Union of India, (2003) 1 SCC 49 / (2005) 6 SCC 344 it is difficult to say that an amendment, which is otherwise innocuous and does not fall foul of any of the well settled parameters of disallowing amendments, should not be allowed, and, if necessary, on payment of costs. We feel that the amendment should, therefore, be allowed. We have also been informed that evidence has yet to be taken.

1
ITEM NO.5               COURT NO.12               SECTION IX
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s)   for   Special   Leave   to   Appeal   (C)   No(s).
25471-25472/2015
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  23-03-2015
in   RP   No.   31/2015   31-10-2014   in   WP   No.   8750/2014   23-03-2015   in   WP
No. 8750/2014 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)
NARAIN HINGORANI & ANR                              Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
HARISH KISHINCHAND CHANDNANI                        Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 25360-25361/2015 (IX)
Date : 22-01-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Adv.
                   Mr. Jatin Zaveri, AOR
Mr. Neel Kamal Mishra, Adv.                 
For Respondent(s)
                   
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent, through served.
A   suit   for   specific   performance   was   filed   on   30.04.2004.
After a period of about nine years, a Chamber Summons was moved on
03.05.2013 to add compensation in case specific performance was not
allowed,   and   a   figure   of   Rs.   50,00,000/-   plus   Rs.   15,00,00,000/-
for mental agony etc. was claimed in the proposed amendment. 
Both   the   Bombay   City   Civil   Court   as   well   as   the   High   Court
have dismissed the amendment filed on the ground that there was no
reason as to why such amendment was not made earlier, and as to why
it was not claimed in the original plaint.

2
After   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   Salem   Advocate   Bar
Association,   T.N.   vs.   Union   of   India,   (2003)   1   SCC   49   /   (2005)   6
SCC   344   it   is   difficult   to   say   that   an   amendment,   which   is
otherwise   innocuous   and   does   not   fall   foul   of   any   of   the   well
settled   parameters   of   disallowing   amendments,   should   not   be
allowed, and, if necessary, on payment of costs.
We feel that the amendment should, therefore, be allowed.   We
have also been informed that evidence has yet to be taken.
In   this   view   of   the   matter,   we   allow   the   plaintiff   to   amend
the   plaint   in   accordance   with   the   Chamber   Summons   moved,   but   on
payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-.
The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
(R. NATARAJAN)                                  (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
COURT MASTER (SH)                                  COURT MASTER