Surya Prakash Shukla v. Vivekanand Kendra Vidyalaya And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/29/2024 Surya Prakash Shukla Vs Vivekanand Kendra Vidyalaya and others Ms. Anjili Nag ... for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondents September 02, 2024 [SR] Item No.11 The petitioner, as plaintiff, instituted a suit for declaration, recovery of arrears of salary and for damages. The said suit was numbered as O.S.No.11 of 2005 and is presently pending before the Court of Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Port Blair at the argument stage.

The petitioner says that, at the stage of argument, the petitioner noticed that in the relief claimed in the suit under prayer (e) instead of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages, it has been inadvertently typed as Rs.10,000/- .

The petitioner made an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amending the prayer(e) to that extent. The said application was dismissed by an order dated 19.06.2024 being the order impugned in this Civil Revisional Application. After going through the order impugned, I do not find any material illegality or irregularity to interfere with the same. However, since the matter has proceeded upto the argument stage, after completion of evidence and that the amendment only relates to the quantum of damages. It will be left open to the learned Trial Court to consider the evidence already led to find out at the trial whether the petitioner has been able to substantiate any claim on account of damage as made in prayer (e).

If the petitioner has been able to substantiate damages, as claimed in prayer (e), and is in excess of Rs.10,000/- as claimed

therein, the learned Judge shall take into account any excess claim over and above Rs.10,000/- while granting relief for such damages. This direction is given keeping in mind that the quantum of damages even though is quantified at the time of filing the suit has element of enquiry embedded therein for the court to access the quantum thereof to grant such relief. The typographical error in claiming less amount as damages, therefore, should not stand in the way if the petitioner, as the plaintiff, is able to substantiate the same on the basis of the applicable law and the evidence already laid. It is also made clear that no new evidence to substantiate the damages as in prayer (e) should be allowed as the suit has reached the argument stage.

This direction is given in order to do complete justice between the parties and the amendment sought for at the belated stage only relates to the quantum of damages considering the facts of this case only. The plaintiff shall have to pay additional court fees, if so necessary at the time of passing the decree.

The revisional application is accordingly disposed of. ( Arindam Mukherjee, J. )