Madras High Court
OSA/261/2022 of M/s. Bohemian Destnations Pvt.Ltd. Vs R. Balakumar on 12 October 2026
OSA No. 261 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GK.MUTHUKUMAAR
OSA No. 261 of 2022
and CMP.No.16743 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA011366732022}
M/s. Bohemian Destinations Pvt.Ltd.
Rep. by its Managing Director, N.G. George, No.7, Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Chennai - 600 006.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
R. Balakumar
S/o. Late.R.K.Radhakrishna Chettiar
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order passed in Application No.4038 of 2021 in C.S.No.157 of 2011 dated 29.04.2022.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.S.L.Sudarsanam
For Respondent(s):
No appearance
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 07:37:59 pm )
OSA No. 261 of 2022
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) The challenge in the present Original Side Appeal is to the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Application No.4038 of 2021 in C.S.No.157 of 2011, dismissing the application filed by the appellant seeking amendment of the plaint.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant had originally instituted the suit in the year 2011 seeking, inter alia, compensation and damages for the losses allegedly suffered on account of the respondent’s breach of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. The appellant subsequently filed an application in the year 2021 seeking enhancement of the compensation claimed to Rs.2,73,00,000/-, contending that it had continuously suffered losses due to the acts and omissions of the respondent. The Learned Single Judge, upon considering the submissions made on either side, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the losses suffered by the appellant were attributable to the breach committed by the respondent and that the suit was still pending. It was further contended that the
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 07:37:59 pm )
OSA No. 261 of 2022
application seeking amendment of the plaint had been filed before the commencement of the trial and that the Learned Single Judge ought to have permitted the amendment to enable the appellant to claim the compensation allegedly due to it.
4. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.
6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the application seeking amendment of the plaint.
7. It is well settled that an application for amendment of the plaint may be permitted, provided that the proposed amendment does not alter the basic nature and character of the suit and is otherwise permissible in law. In the present case, the appellant seeks to enhance the claim for compensation on the ground that it had sustained further losses arising out of the lease transaction. According to the appellant, the cause of action arose in the year 2008, whereas the suit itself was instituted in the year 2011, claiming compensation for the losses allegedly suffered.
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 07:37:59 pm )
OSA No. 261 of 2022
8. It is further to be noted that the lease agreement was for a period of ten years and that the appellant seeks to claim compensation by reference to the losses allegedly sustained during the said period. The application for amendment was filed only in the year 2021. The appellant has not satisfactorily explained the delay of nearly ten years in seeking the proposed amendment, particularly when the alleged cause of action and the basis of the claim were already available to the appellant. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not made out sufficient grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Learned Single Judge. The prolonged delay in seeking the amendment has not been satisfactorily explained and the appellant cannot be permitted to seek the proposed amendment at this belated stage in the absence of sufficient justification. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present Original Side Appeal.
9. In the result, this Original Side Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VKR
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 07:37:59 pm )
OSA No. 261 of 2022
To The Sub Assistant Registrar (Original Side), High Court of Madras, Chennai.
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 07:37:59 pm )
OSA No. 261 of 2022
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. VKR OSA No. 261 of 2022 12-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 15/10/2026 07:37:59 pm )