Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
K.N. Ramaraju – Appellant
Versus
G. Ganapathi – Respondent
ORDER :
(NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.)
Impugned order: This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dated 27.02.2023 in I.A.No.54 of 2020 in O.S.No.201 of 2017 passed by the X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, rejecting an application for amendment of plaint filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the Petitioner/Plaintiff.
2. The introductory facts: The suit O.S.No.201 of 2017 was filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff to pay an amount of Rs.9 crores within a time to be fixed by the Court and in the event the amount not being paid, sale of mortgaged properties towards satisfaction of the decree and the further relief sought was interest @ 24% p.a.from the date of suit till realization.
3. The facts leading to the institution of the suit as per the plaint are that the Petitioner and Respondents are friends and the Petitioner used to lend money by way of hand loans to meet their personal expenses.
4. In the year 2012, the Respondent No. 1 was involved in real estate and was borrowing amounts from the Petitioner from time to time. The outstanding amounts payable to the Petitioner at one stage came to Rs.6 crores. At that point of time, the Respondents had purchased the su
Amendments to plaints are permissible if they do not change the nature of the suit or cause prejudice, allowing for inconsistent alternative reliefs.
The court's decision emphasized that an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should not change the nature or character of the suit or its cause of action.
An amendment changing the nature of a suit from recovery of money to specific performance is impermissible when the responding party has previously sought a refund, indicating they were not ready to ....
Amendments to pleadings must be liberally allowed unless they change the nature of the suit or introduce a time-barred claim.
Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act permits amendments to include claims for refund of earnest money at any stage, overriding limitations in the CPC.
Amendments to pleadings introducing time-barred claims are impermissible, especially when sought after significant delay without sufficient explanation.
Point of law: High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence, when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there ....
Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act allows the plaintiff to seek the refund of earnest money or deposit at any stage of the proceeding and overrides the Code of Civil Procedure in permitting amendm....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
