SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 1486

Supreme Court Of India
CHANDAN HAZARIKA
Versus
BANTI BHUYAN
Decided on : September 8, 2000

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, Order 6 Rule 17 - Amendment of written statement Application rejected both by trial court and the High Court- Proposed amendment even if based on two different pleas, but it did not t prejudice of the respondent-. So the Courts below erred in rejecting the application for amendment of written statement- amendment allowed and case remanded to the trial court [Paras 4, 5]

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) THE present appeal is directed against the order rejecting the proposed amendment of the written statement, both by the trial court and the High court. The proposed amendment is to the following effect:"14. (a) That the plaintiff has relinquished the entire claim over the guwahati property in favour of the defendant in lieu of movable properties including ornaments, cash in hand and half-share of Shillong property and Sibsagar property left by their parents and as such also she cannot claim partition over Guwahati property and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 14. (b) That it is submitted that in a partition suit all the properties inherited from the ancestors are to be included in one suit. In the instant suit all the properties left by the ancestors of the parties not having been included the suit is liable to be dismissed. "

( 4 ) THE submission on behalf of the appellant is that there is nothing in the said amendment which prejudices the respondent, hence, the courts below wrongly deprived the appellant from contesting the matter on this ground. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this suit is hanging since long, apart from this being a belated plea it is an inconsistent plea, hence, rightly rejected. Learned counsel for the respondent also referred to an earlier amendment of the written statement, which was granted where he claimed to have matured title over this very property by adverse possession.

( 5 ) HAVING considered the matter, the proposed amendment may be said to be based on two different pleas, but it cannot be said to be to the prejudice of the respondent, leading to its rejection. So the courts below were wrong to reject this amendment. However, we make it clear, any observation made by us is for the limited purpose of considering, whether the amendment should be allowed or not. This is without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of both the trial court and the High Court are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for disposing of the suit expeditiously at an early date. While disposing of the matter, the court will keep in mind the directions issued by the High Court in para 13 of its judgment.

( 6 ) COSTS on the parties.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top