A. K. SIKRI ( 1 ) THIS writ petition raises a neat question of law relatable to the amendment of the plaint filed by respondent-Punjab National Bank in O. A. No. 508 of 1996 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), New Delhi. The amendment application stands allowed by DRT, New Delhi. The appeal of the petitioner-Indian Bank against the said order filed before Debts Recovery. Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbal has also failed The amendment appears to be innocuous. However, it has wide ramifications as far as Indian Bank is concerned. Therefore, feeling aggrieved against the orders of the subordinate authorities, this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by Indian Bank. In order to appreciate the controversy in this petition, it is not necessary to state the facts in detail and a cursory look of material facts would suffice the purpose. These material facts as noted by the DRAT may be reproduced as under: ( 2 ) THE Punjab National Bank agreed to advance loan facility to the extent of 6 million US Dollars to M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Limited. This M/s. Oswal Agro Mills limited in consideration of the said facility agreed to provide to M/s. Indo Europe food Ltd. having its registered office at London, with guarantee bond in terms of the agreement between them. Advance to be repaid by deductions at 10% of the value of each export invoice for the supply of goods i. e. oilseeds, oil extractions and oil cakes, etc. M/s. Oswal Agro Mills Limited approached the Indian Bank for the issue of a guarantee, and accordingly the appellant issued guarantee on 3. 2. 1983. There-upon the Punjab National Bank on 1. 3. 1983 released a sum of 6 million US dollars to the respondent no. 2 M/s. Indo Europe, who in turn remitted the amount to the appellant. As per the terms of the guarantee, the respondent no. 2 M. /s. Indo europe Food Ltd. by way of security for all sums within or at any time owing due or payable under the Loan agreement dated 18/2/1983 assigned all its rights, title, interest in and to receive any sums whatsoever under or in connection with the guarantee of the appellant bank. Suffice to say, the Punjab National Bank ultimately filed suit for recovery of Rs. 8,79,86,380. 27 paise equivalent to US dollars 5236274. Suffice to say, the Punjab National Bank ultimately filed suit for recovery of Rs. 8,79,86,380. 27 paise equivalent to US dollars 5236274. 54, alongwith interest in Indian currency at Rs. 2,87,47,590. 48 paise which is equivalent to US Dollars 1711166. 10. The said suit was initially filed in Delhi High Court. On enactment of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and financial Institutions Act, 1993", the said suit came to be transferred to Debts recovery Tribunal, Delhi and was numbered as O. A. No. 508/1996. ( 3 ) IT may be mentioned here that the suit was filed in the year 1989. An application for amendment of plaint was filed in the year 1998 i. e. almost a year after the institution of the suit. By this amendment Punjab National Bank sought to delete conversion component of the amount in Indian currency from the various clauses as well as relief clause of the plaint. The reason given is that due to mistake or oversight the Punjab National Bank claimed Indian rupees equivalent to US dollars in the suit and this Indian rupees equivalent to US Dollars is sought to be deleted. On deletion it would be decree in terms of US Dollars only. The amendment is sought in the heading/title of the suit, para-23ofthe plaint as well as in the prayer clause which is para-50 of the plaint. The heading in the original plaint reads as under: "suit FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 8,79,86,380. 27 EQUIVALENT OF US dollars 5236284. 54 INTEREST RS. 2,87,47,590. 48 EQUIVALENT OF dollars 17,11,166. 10 AND COSTS. " ( 4 ) BY amendment Punjab National Bank wants rupee component to be deleted so that to make it a suit for recovery of US Dollars only both for principal as well as interest. The material part of para-23 and para-50 of the original plaint reads as under: para No. 23 of the plaint, to the extent relevant is as follows: "a claim of Rs. 3,09,36,112. 94 equivalent to $ 2,462,514. 55 had been made on account of principal and interest thereon 18% amounting to Rs. 74,50,176. 51 equivalent to $ 593,034. 05. The aggregate amount claimed in the suit is Rs. 3,83,86,288. 94. "relief clause namely Para No. 50 to the extent relevant, reads as follows; "that the plaintiff prays for a decree against the defendants jointly and severally for; (i) Rs. 8,79,86,380. 74,50,176. 51 equivalent to $ 593,034. 05. The aggregate amount claimed in the suit is Rs. 3,83,86,288. 94. "relief clause namely Para No. 50 to the extent relevant, reads as follows; "that the plaintiff prays for a decree against the defendants jointly and severally for; (i) Rs. 8,79,86,380. 27 equivalent US Dollars 5,237,284. 54; (ii)Rs. 2,87,47,590. 48 equivalent US Dollars 17,11,166. 10 on account of interest upto the date of the suit; (iii) Future interest from the date of suit till recovery at the rate of 2% over london Inter Bank offered rate; (iv) Costs of the suit; (v) For further directions and orders that decretal amount may be paid to plaintiff in U. S. Dollars. " ( 5 ) IN these paras also rupee component is sought to be deleted. The amendment appears to be dovelike. However, its impact is sizeable, it is manifest as during this period there is titanic increase in the value of US Dollars against the Indian rupee. If the claim is to be ultimately allowed in rupees, it is Rs. 8,79,86,380. 27 with interest. However, if the claim is to be ultimately allowed in US Dollars it is US $ 52,36,284. 54. After converting this at today s exchange rate, amount would increase manifold, inasmuch as in 1989 if the conversion rate was about 16 rupees a dollar, it is today about 46 rupees a dollar. We are told that it will have the effect of enhancing claim by about Rs. 22 crores. ( 6 ) AS aforesaid, the DRT as well as DRAT have allowed the amendment in question. The main challenge to the application for amendment filed by Punjab national Bank, and naturally to the impugned orders passed by DRT and DRAT, is that once the Punjab National Bank had claimed the amount in Indian rupees in the plaint, such an amendment was not permissible in view of the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Forasol Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission AIR 1984sc241 that too after a period of more than 9 years from the date of filing of the suit thereby fastening the petitioner with additional liability. According to the petitioner, the claim for additional sum had otherwise become time barred and a valuable right had accrued in favour of the petitioner due to the lapse of time. Thus amendment was impermissible. According to the petitioner, the claim for additional sum had otherwise become time barred and a valuable right had accrued in favour of the petitioner due to the lapse of time. Thus amendment was impermissible. ( 7 ) IT may be mentioned at this stage that as far as order of the DRT is concerned, admittedly it is non-speaking order and no supportive reasons are given while allowing the amendment. However, order of DRAT deals with the issue in detail. A reading of this order would reveal that the learned DRAT was mainly influenced by the averments made in para-42, para-46 and prayer (v) as per which plaintiff-Punjab national Bank had categorically stated that it was entitled to receive and recoverdecretal amount in US Dollars and had specifically prayed for decree in US Dollars. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Forasol (Supra) is held to be not applicable as that judgment related to the merits of the case and did not deal with the question of amendment. According to the DRAT Punjab National Bank was not trying to get the amount in US Dollars because of hike in the US Dollars but it had prayed in plaint itself for decree in US Dollars equivalent to Indian currency. ( 8 ) MR. GOPAL Subramanium, learned senior counsel appearing for the Indian Bank submitted that the DRAT did not appreciate the law laid down by Supreme Court in forasol case (supra) in right perspective. His submission was that this judgment categorically lays down the practice which ought to be followed in suits in which amount of money is expressed in foreign currency can legitimately be claimed by the plaintiff and decreed by the Court. At the time of filing of the suit plaintiff has to decide as to whether he is to claim the amount due to him in Indian currency or in foreign currency in which it is payable. If he chooses the first alternative he can sue for that amount as converted into Indian rupees and his prayer can only be for a sum of Indian currency. For this purpose the plaintiff would have to convert the foreign currency amount due to him into Indian currency. However, it is open to the plaintiff to choose the other* alternative and claim in foreign currency amount due to him. For this purpose the plaintiff would have to convert the foreign currency amount due to him into Indian currency. However, it is open to the plaintiff to choose the other* alternative and claim in foreign currency amount due to him. The required exercise to be done claiming the amount in foreign currency is explicitly formalised in the case of Forasol (supra) as under: "in such a suit the proper prayer for the plaintiff to make in his plaint would be for a decree that the defendant to pay to him the foreign currency sum claimed in the plaint subject to the permission of the concerned authorities under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 being granted and that in the event of the foreign exchange authorities not granting the requisite permission or the defendant not wanting to make payment in foreign currency even though such permission has been granted or the defendant not making payment in foreign currency or in Indian rupees, whether such permission has been granted or not the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the rupee equivalent of the foreign currency sum claimed at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of the judgement. ( 9 ) FOR the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction the plaintiff should, however, value his claim in the suit by converting the foreign currency sum claimed by him into Indian rupees at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of the filing of the suit of the date nearest or most nearly preceding such date, stating in his plaint what such rate of exchange is. ( 10 ) HE should further give an undertaking in the plaint that he would make good the deficiency in the Court fees, if any, if at the date of the judgement, at the rate of exchange then prevailing, the rupee equivalent of the foreign currency sum decreed is higher than that mentioned in the plaint for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction. " (emphasis supplied) ( 11 ) ACCORDING to the learned senior counsel if Punjab National Bank wanted the claim in foreign currency, as per the aforesaid observations in Forasolcase (supra) it was necessary for Punjab National Bank to adhere to the following mandatory requirements in the plaint: a. Prayer in the plaint for a decree that the defendant to pay him the foreign currency sum claimed in the plaint; b. convert the value of his claim in the suit in Indian currency for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of filing of the suit and pay the court fee thereon; c. give an undertaking in the plaint that it would make good the deficiency in the court fee, if any, if at the date of judgment at the rate of exchange then prevailing the rupees equivalent of the foreign exchange sum decreed is higher than that mentioned in the plaint for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. ( 12 ) IT was submitted that in the plaint as filed no such requirement was complied with. On the contrary sub-para (i) of the prayer clause shows that Punjab National bank asked for decree by converting US Dollars in rupees as on that date. Likewise interest component was also converted into rupees. Heading of the suit also mentioned decree in rupees. Therefore, the plaintiff had converted the claim of us Dollars into Indian rupees at the time of filing of the suit and as this conversion was not for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction. Thus Punjab National Bank had chosen an alternative of claiming the amount in Indian currency. The liability of the Indian Bank in the eventuality if it loses ultimately became fixed in Indian rupees. It is this amount which was to be given in dollars as stated by Punjab National bank at various places. Therefore if the decree is passed, amount of rs. 8,79,86,380. 27 and-interest of Rs. 2,87,47,590. 48 would be converted into US dollars. That is why the prayer regarding payment of this amount was prayer (v) in the prayer clause after claiming the amount in rupees as per prayers (i)and (ii ). ( 13 ) IT was further submitted that if the amendment is allowed the effect of that is raising the claim of Punjab National Bank by Rs. That is why the prayer regarding payment of this amount was prayer (v) in the prayer clause after claiming the amount in rupees as per prayers (i)and (ii ). ( 13 ) IT was further submitted that if the amendment is allowed the effect of that is raising the claim of Punjab National Bank by Rs. 22 crores which had clearly become time barred at the time of filing of the application for amendment as the application was not filed within 3 years of the cause of action or even from the date of filing of the suit. Reliance was also placed on Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Mrs. Janet Anne Woolqar James and Ors Vs. Jaypee Hotel ltd. 2000 (1) AD (DELHI) 910 = 83 (2000) Delhi Law Times 277 (DB) wherein such an amendment was disallowed relying upon Forasol case (supra ). ( 14 ) ON the other hand Mr. Jagdeep Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the punjab National Bank submitted that the tenor of the plaint would show that the intention was to pray for decree in US Dollars only. Punjab National Bank had in fact made the payment in US Dollars. It had also made its intention clear by stating at so many places in plaint that it wanted recovery of money in US Dollars. The reasoning given by the DRAT was adopted in support with further submission that as per the law relating to amendment, amendment should be liberally granted. It was submitted that since the intention was to get the decree in US Dollars in order to avoid any confusion in Clause (i) and (ii) of the prayer clause as well as in heading title of the suit in para-23 of the plaint, amendment was sought which was more of clarificatory nature. ( 15 ) THERE cannot be any doubt that as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme court in Forasol case (supra), the plaintiff has to make choice at the time of filing of the suit itself. Plaintiff can either claim in Indian currency or in foreign currency and the formalities required for making the claim in foreign currency are to be clearly spelt out. Admittedly, the plaint of theplaintiff did not adhere to these formalities. Plaintiff can either claim in Indian currency or in foreign currency and the formalities required for making the claim in foreign currency are to be clearly spelt out. Admittedly, the plaint of theplaintiff did not adhere to these formalities. In the heading as well as in the prayer clause, the decree in terms of rupees by way of US Dollars as on the date of filing of the suit is claimed. Thus the plaintiff converted the claim of US Dollars in rupees as per conversion rate prevailing on that date and specifically claimed the rupee component in the plaint. No doubt in clause- (v)ofthe prayer clause it is mentioned that the plaintiff wanted money to be paid to it in US Dollars. The place where this clause is inserted after claiming the amount in rupees as well as after the claim of future interest and cost shows that the intention is to reconvert the amount from rupee component into US Dollars at the time of payment of the said amount by Indian Bank to Punjab National Bank in the eventuality decree is passed in favour of Punjab National Bank. This subtle distinction of praying the decree in dollars and praying the decree in rupees but demanding the amount in dollars that to be kept in mind. In the former case the prayer has to be for decree in US dollars and the rupee element has to crop in only for the purpose of Court Fee, that too in the manner indicated in Forasol Case (supra ). The conversion was not made for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction. On the contrary para-49 of the plaint relating to Court Fee and jurisdiction reads as under: "the value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 11,67,33,970. 75 and court fee of Rs. 11,38,066. 40 affixed. " ( 16 ) IN this para it is not stated that the claim is converted into Indian currency only for the purpose of payment of Court Fee and jurisdiction nor any undertaking is given for making good deficiency in the Court Fee, if any, if on the date of judgment the rupee equivalent of foreign currency sum decree is higher than that mentioned in the plaint. On the contrary as mentioned above in the prayer clause even the amount in Indian rupees is claimed by converting the same into Indian rupees. Therefore, if the amendment is allowed at this stage the effect of which is to increase the money claimed by Rs. 22 crores thereby making it more than 3 times the original claim. Such a claim is going to cause injustice to the Indian Bank and would snatch from it its valuable right as otherwise the claim has become barred by the limitation. Precisely the same very question came up for consideration before the Division bench in the case of Mrs. Janef Anne Woolqar James and Ors Vs. Jaypeehotel ltd. (supra) and relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of pirgonda Hongonda Patil Vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Ors. AIR 1957 SC 363 the Division Bench refused to allow such an amendment. We may also mention that Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sawhney Brothers Vs. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. and Ors. 2000 (6) AD (DELHI) 391 = 86 (2000) DLT 663 has taken the same view disallowing the amendment as time barred in same circumstances following Forasol case (supra) and Mrs. Janet Anne Woolqar James and Ors Vs. Jaypee Hotel Ltd. (supra ). The appeal against this judgment was also dismissed by Division Bench in limini. Following observations in this judgment, with which we agree, would meet most of the arguments of the learned counsel for the Punjab National Bank: "the submission of learned Counsel for the plaintiff that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant if the amendment is allowed cannot be appreciated The direct effect would be that the defendant s liability under the decree would be increased manifold Whether the transactions between the plaintiff and the other parties was in US dollars is wholly irrelevant because a reading of the plaint would disclose that the claim related to the debit entry of Rs. 39,92,315. 30 No amendment can be allowed if by the amendment the effect would be to grant a relief which is barred by limitation. An amendment should also not be permitted if it has the effect of unjustly increasing the liability of the defendant. 39,92,315. 30 No amendment can be allowed if by the amendment the effect would be to grant a relief which is barred by limitation. An amendment should also not be permitted if it has the effect of unjustly increasing the liability of the defendant. Assuming that the suit was decreed shortly after it had been filed, the plaintiff would have been entitled to a decree in Indian rupee s. The endemic delay in disposal of cases is compensated, in a substantial measure, by the awarding of interest on the amount claimed. In fact, on the debit of approximately Rs. 40 lakhs the plaintiff himself claimed Rs. 60 lakhs after including the interest. The powers of the Court to grant interest alleviate the delay in the decision. " ( 18 ) CONSEQUENTLY this writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 2/12/1998 of DRT, Delhi and 15/12/1999 of DRAT, Mumbai are hereby set-aside. Amendment Application dated 16/5/1998 filed by Punjab national Bank under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no orders as to costs.