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

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (2) TMI 918

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as also for a decree for setting aside some deeds of sale executed in favour of some of the defendants was filed by the respondent No. 1. Indisputably, during pendency of the said suit, the defendant Nos. 3 to 7 sold their right, title and interest in favour of the appellants by reason of registered deeds of sale dated 29.06.1992 and 7.08.1992. The said defendants having not taken any further steps in the said suit, it was directed to be heard exparte against them. 4. Appellants herein filed an application for impleading themselves as parties in the said suit, which was rejected by an order dated 4.08.1993. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, they filed a revision application before the High Court. The High Court by reason of an or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2003, which was dismissed by an order dated 14.03.2005. The High Court, by reason of the impugned judgment dated 10.08.2005 dismissed the revision application filed by the appellants there against. Appellants are, thus, before us. 8. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, would submit: (i) The learned Trial Judge as also the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as they failed to take into consideration that an application for amendment of plaint was not maintainable after passing of a decree. (ii) Appellants herein having been impleaded as a party in the final decree proceedings in terms of the order of the High court dated 3.07.1998, the Trial Co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as noticed hereinbefore, is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in the plaint suit land was described as Revisional Survey No. 165. The village became a part of the municipality, by reason whereof a new Town Survey was assigned to the suit land being Town Survey No. 463. However, in the plaint and consequently in the preliminary decree as also in the final decree, Town Survey No. 462 was mistakenly mentioned, which was evidently a typographical mistake. 11. The power of the court to allow such an application for amendment of plaint is neither in doubt nor in dispute. Such a wide power on the part of the court is circumscribed by two factors, viz., (i) the application must be bonafide; (ii) the same should not cause injusti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Survey No. 462 was the joint family property or could have otherwise been the subject matter of the said suit for partition. In Sajjan Kumar v. Ram Kishan [(2005) 13 SCC 89], this Court held: 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the appeal deserves to be allowed as the trial court, while rejecting the prayer for amendment has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law and by the failure to so exercise it, has occasioned a possible failure of justice. Such an error committed by the trial court was liable to be corrected by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, even if Section 115 CPC would not have been strictly applicable. It is true that the plaintiff-appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... en statement, he did so at its own peril. Admittedly, he examined himself as a witness in the case. He, therefore, was aware of the issues raised in the suit. It is stated that an Advocate- Commissioner has also been appointed. We, therefore, are of the opinion that only because the JL numbers in the schedule was missing, the same by itself would not be a ground to interfere with the impugned order. In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (Dead) By LRs. [(2008) 8 SCC 511], this Court held: 16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 C.P .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates