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