SEMCO SALVAGE PTE LIMITED vs m.v. KAPTAN YUSUF KALKAVAN and another

' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 10-10-1991.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed a snit for the recovery of US. $377,560.96 equal to Pak Rs,66,07,316.80 against respondent No,1 for salvage service. The suit was contested. Issues were framed and some witnesses were also examined. According to the appellant, in the meantime cargo interest furnished security in the sum of US $1.25 million with the Committee of Lloyd's pending determination of the salvage award by the arbitrator was eventually settled in the sum of Rs,537,500 US Dollars. The dispute before the arbitrator was confined to the share of the respondent No,1. The appellant on 14-6-1988 filed an application under Order VI, rule 17 for amendment of the plaint so as to bring their claim in line with the award. Another application for amendment was made by the appellant on 11-3-1989 so as to clarify the position as to the proceeding in the Suez Court of first instance. The learned trial Court allowed the amendment by means of order dated 9-9-1990. This order was challenged in appeal which was allowed by the impugned judgment.

3. A learned Division Bench after laying down the principle for allowing the amendment of the plaint observed that the amendments sought by the plaintiff-appellant would change the nature of the suit. Order VI, rule 17 empowers the Court to allow amendment at any stage of the proceeding for just decision of the case. The technicalities are to be avoided. The plaintiff's original cause of action is based on salvage service and award made subsequent to the filing of the suit needed the proposed amendment. It is directly connected with the cause of action. The amendment allowed by the learned trial Judge does not alter the nature of the suit either in form or in substance. The nature of an added claim in substance is the same. There is no change in the nature of cause of action. The nature, claim and cause of action have not changed. For resolving the entire dispute between the parties and saving them from multiplicity of proceedings, the amendment was necessary. There is no inconsistent plea taken by the plainitff in the proposed amendment. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, dated 10-10- 1991 and restore that of the learned Single Judge dated 9-9-1990. There will be no order as to costs.