M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Advocates on both sides. The petitioner before me has filed O. S. No. 20 of 1991 against the respondent-Corporation wherein, briefly stated his contention is that he is entitled to claim very heavy compensatory costs and damages from the Corporation for having virtually ruined the project that had been started by him and for having caused to the petitioner the consequential loss which he has claimed on a recurring basis on the footing that but for the alleged illegal acts that the project would have been a success. The suit has been filed in forma pauperis and the petitioner has already carried out one amendment where-under he has claimed an amount of Rs. 3,99,37,945/ -. The earlier amendment was allowed by the Court after which the petitioner filed one more interlocutory application whereby he has sought a further amendment to add on the claims for the subsequent periods upto March 1999 and to enhance his claim to Rs. 25,79,14,000/ -. This has been disallowed by the trial Court and the present petition is directed against that order. ( 2 ) THE short submission canvassed by the petitioner's learned Advocate is that the entire case of the petitioner is that he had successfully commissioned the unit in question and that it had started working. His submission is that he had also started production and according to him, because of certain coercive steps which the respondent took, since he was not able to make the required repayments, that the unit was forcibly closed down on more than one occasion and that finally, it went into total collapse again because of the coercive steps taken by the respondents. The petitioner's contention is that whatever action the respondents have taken was malicious and unjustified and according to him, a stage was reached when it was found that due to the wrongful acts on the part of the respondents the entire unit was ransacked and nothing is left of the equipment, machinery, stocks, etc. The petitioner's contention is that whatever action the respondents have taken was malicious and unjustified and according to him, a stage was reached when it was found that due to the wrongful acts on the part of the respondents the entire unit was ransacked and nothing is left of the equipment, machinery, stocks, etc. The petitioner has done certain evaluations under different heads one of which is that according to him if the unit was running that it would have been a total financial success, that it would have yielded high profits, that the petitioner would not only have been able to make his repayments but that the business itself would have expanded to a point whereby the income itself would have multiplied or in other words, the petitioner's case is that because of the collapse of the unit due to the actions on the part of the respondents that his potential earnings for all the future years have been lost and that the defendants are liable to compensate for this. At this early stage, it is better to refrain from commenting with regard to the claims of the petitioner though theoretically, if the petitioner can establish his claims before the Trial Court he would certainly be entitled to appropriate reliefs. His learned Advocate submits that if in a given instance a financial institution is totally responsible through its mala fide acts for the destruction and ruination of a project and those associated with it, that a Court is within its jurisdiction to order compensation/damages for the legal injury that has resulted which would include the earnings from year to year. The learned Advocate's submission is that since the suit was not disposed off that the petitioner is entitled to add on the prospective earnings for the subsequent years as these would form part and parcel of the cause of action. His submission therefore is that the amendment in question has wrongly been rejected. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT's learned Advocate submits that this Court will only have to take one factor into consideration, viz. , that it was a small-scale unit for which a modest amount of money have been advanced and that even if one were to test the petitioner's case, a simple mathematical calculation would indicate that even the amendment allowed on the first occasion was unjustified because the claim itself has gone up to almost rs. , that it was a small-scale unit for which a modest amount of money have been advanced and that even if one were to test the petitioner's case, a simple mathematical calculation would indicate that even the amendment allowed on the first occasion was unjustified because the claim itself has gone up to almost rs. 4 crores. His submission is that even in situations where damages are awarded they are in relation to the actual damage caused assuming that it is payable and that this has to be assessed on the basis of the earnings from the unit and his submission is that the present amendment bears absolutely no nexus or relation to the project costs or the earnings and has therefore been very rightly rejected by the Court. ( 4 ) I have done a rough assessment of the figures and the economics involved in the present case and while the petitioner is certainly entitled to press his claim and prove it if he can and obtain appropriate reliefs from the Court, it is equally necessary for the Court to put the brakes on the type of claims that are made. The earlier amendment itself has pushed the figure upto approximately Rs. 4 crores, which in my considered opinion is mare than sufficient to cover the claims of the petitioner assuming they can be established and his present amendment which bears absolutely no relation to the facts of the case or to reality will necessarily nave to be disallowed. I clarify that the petitioner is entitled to agitate his claim under all heads but that does not mean to say that indiscriminate amendments can be carried out incorporating astronomical figures. ( 5 ) THE suit itself is an old one. The present amendment, to my mind, was unnecessary. It is more desirable that the Court hears the parties and disposes off the proceeding expeditiously. The civil revision petition succeeds and stands disposed off. No order as to costs. ( 5 ) THE suit itself is an old one. The present amendment, to my mind, was unnecessary. It is more desirable that the Court hears the parties and disposes off the proceeding expeditiously. The civil revision petition succeeds and stands disposed off. No order as to costs. ( 6 ) BEFORE parting with the case, since there is a small individual on one side and the Corporation on the other and it is a very unequal contest, 1 have suggested to the parties to explore the possibility of a negotiated settlement so that the petitioner can get a fair relief and more importantly, the Corporation can avoid the possibility of a decree against them for a very massive amount. It would be inappropriate to make any observations about the merits of the case beyond requesting the learned Counsels in the interests of their respective clients to ensure that the dispute is resolved fairly and amicably. Copy of this order to be furnished to the learned Advocates immediately. --- *** --- .