Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH J
Savithramma @ Nanjamma, W/O Late Ningegowda – Appellant
Versus
Ramegowda, Since Dead By His Lrs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
H.P.Sandesh, J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 10.
2. This MSA is filed against the order passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.5/2023 wherein the First Appellate Court allowed I.A.No.1 filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and remitted the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to permit the plaintiff for amendment in the plaint as sought in I.A.No.1 and to afford opportunity to defendant Nos.11 to 15 to file the written statement and additional written statement if any and provide an opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional evidence.
3. This order is under challenge before this Court. The counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court is not justified in entertaining an application for amendment of the plaint. The counsel would vehemently contend that no application is filed under Order 21 Rule 27 of CPC and also the counsel would vehemently contend that while remanding the matter, the Court has to keep in mind Order 41 Rule 23, 23-A and 25 of CPC and only if satisfies, then remand could be made. The counsel would veh
The First Appellate Court erred in allowing an amendment of the plaint after extensive litigation, disregarding previous findings on the legal status of the parties involved.
The court emphasized that late applications for written statements and expert analysis must be scrutinized to prevent abuse of process, especially where significant delays are evident.
A party's right to continue litigation following a party's death is preserved under CPC, allowing substitution even if the initial application cites the wrong procedural rule, emphasizing the continu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Order 22 of CPC are procedural and should not curtail the substantial rights of the parties. The Court emphasized the applic....
Amendments to a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 require sufficient reasoning; extensive changes that alter the nature of the suit were not permitted as a new filing.
Amendments to pleadings post-trial require showing of due diligence, and must not alter the fundamental nature of the case, or cause undue prejudice to the opposing party.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that all necessary amendments for determining the real question in controversy should be allowed, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice....
Court ruled that procedural amendment requests should be allowed even after the trial begins, provided they clarify existing claims and do not introduce new issues.
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
