Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 1996 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1996 (10) TMI 502 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues:
- Application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- Whether the proposed amendment would alter the nature of the suit, cause of action, boundaries, extent of property, and owner of the property.
- Consideration of delay in filing the application for amendment.
- Interpretation of the scope of the Court's powers to order amendment of the plaint.

Analysis:

The civil revision petition challenged the lower court's order refusing to allow an application for the amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff sought to restrict the relief claimed in the suit property to the eastern portion of an extent of 1.27 1/2 acres, reducing it from the original 2.55 acres. The defendant objected, arguing that the proposed amendment would introduce a new case, altering the nature of the suit, cause of action, boundaries, extent of property, and owner of the property.

The trial Judge noted the delay in filing the application for amendment and concluded that the plaintiff did not act bona fide, leading to the rejection of the application. The lower Court accepted the defendant's contentions that the proposed amendment would significantly change the suit's nature and cause of action. However, the plaintiff argued that the nature of the suit and cause of action remained unchanged, as only the extent of the property was reduced.

In analyzing the contentions, the Court referenced legal precedents to determine the scope of the Court's powers to order amendment of the plaint. It was established that an amendment should not introduce a new cause of action, but amendments not involving fresh relief could be allowed even with delay. The plaintiff's plea to restrict the claim to a lesser extent of the property was found to be bona fide, as it did not alter the nature of the suit or cause of action.

The Court found that the proposed amendment did not change the boundaries, cause of action, or nature of the suit. The plaintiff's claim to the suit property remained consistent, and the amendment sought to correct the extent and boundaries of the property without introducing a new cause of action. Therefore, the Court allowed the civil revision petition, emphasizing that the plaintiff's amendment was bona fide and did not warrant rejection based on the reasons provided by the trial Judge.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates