the cause involves - P1, P2, D1, D2. P1 is the wholly owned subsidiary of P2, while D1 is the wholly owned subsidiary of D2. D2 had provided financial assistance to P2 in 2017. P2 underwent CIRP under IBC in 2019. During the CIRP proceedings, it was decided that P1 would deliver goods to D1, not under any individual commercial transaction, but merely to set off the claim that was owed by P2 to D2. there was no privity of contract between P1 and D1. now, P2 has filed an amendment application in the court, seeking the deletion of P2 from the array of parties, as they have undergone CIRP and are extinguished from all debts, and have filed an amendment application to turn the suit into a recovery suit, claiming that P1 delivered goods but D1 did not pay them, therefore recovery suit. completely ignoring the fact that this was never a simple recovery suit. theirinitial claims were only declaratory reliefs - praying the court to declare that their liability stood extinguished after the said delivery fo goods. now they are changing their own pleadings by aksing for recovery of money. moreover, it is not only introducing a fresh cause of action within the same suit, but also is time barred (3 years have passed , therefore no recovery suit can exist), and us as the defendants are being prejudiced by such amendment. please advice and comment as to what can be done moving ahead, and what might be the court's observations. moreover, pls give some judgments that can be used , which have similar facts to counter such relief of amendment.
