TMI Blog1978 (1) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rties, and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation on particular causes of action must take. Order 6, rule 2 Civil Procedure Code says: Every pleading shall contain, and contain only a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the, evidence by which they are to be proved, and shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively. Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in figures . Order 6, rule 4 indicates cases in which particulars of its pleading must be set out by a party. And, order 6, rule 6 requires only such conditions precedent to be distinctly specified in a pleading as a party wants to put in issue. Order 6, rule 5 provides for such further and better statement of the nature of the claim or defence, or further and better particulars of any matter stated in any pleading...... as the Court may order, and upon such terms, as 'to costs and otherwise, as may be just . Order 6, rule 7, contains a prohibition against departure of proof from the pleadings except by way of amendment of pleadings. After some provisions relating to spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eadings are generally curable if the cause of action sought to be brought out was not ab initio completely absent. Even very defective pleadings may be permitted to be cured. so as to constitute a cause of action where there was none, provided necessary conditions, such as payment of either any additional court fees, which may be payable, or, of costs of the other side are complied with. It is only if lapse of time has barred the remedy on a newly constituted cause of action that the Courts should, ordi- narily, refuse prayers for amendment of pleadings. In the case before us, the appellant-plaintiff M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. ' Karnal, had filed a suit through Shri Jai Parkash , a partner of that firm, based on a promissory note, dated 25th August 1970, for recovery of ₹ 68,000/-. The non-payment of money due under the promissory note was the real basis. The suit was filed on 24th August 1973, just before the expiry of the period of limitation for the claim for payment. The written statement was filed on 5th June 1974, denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was also asserted that the suit was incompetent for want of registration of the firm and was struck by the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate Court had reversed the decree on the ground that section 42 of the Specific Relief Act barred the grant of a mere declaratory decree in such a case, the appellant had sought leave, by filing an amendment application in its second appeal before the High Court seeking to add a relief to recover such monies as may be found due to him on proper accounting. By a majority, the view expressed by this Court was that the amendment should be allowed although the Court affirmed the principle that, as a rule, a party should not be allowed, by means of an amendment, to set up a new cause of action particularly when a suit on the new case or cause of action is barred by time. On that occasion, this Court had also referred to Charan Das v. Amir Khan), and, L. J. Leach Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner Co.(3), to hold that a different or additional approach to the same facts could be allowed by amendment even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation. It had pointed out that the object of rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes or shortcoming. It also said that no question of limitation, strictly speaking, arose in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erved ( at p. 1269) : Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, in- advertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, un- (1) A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1267. less it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be recompensed by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. Purushottam Umedbhai Co. v. M/s. Manilal Sons(1), was a case of a partnership firm where this Court pointed out that Section 4 of the Partnership Act uses the term firm or the firm name as a compendious description of all the partners collectively . Speaking of the provisions of Order 30 Civil Procedure Code this Court said there (at p. 991) The introduction of this provision in the Code was an enabling one which permitted partners constituting a firm to sue or be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
