JUDGMENT - KARNIK D.G., J.:---Heard Mr. Madon for the plaintiff, Mr. Kadam for defendant Nos. 1 to 9 and Mr. Shah for defendant Nos. 10 to 17. The defendants oppose the chamber summons on the ground namely that the case made by means of amendment is such that it would have been barred by limitation if the suit was instituted on the date of the application for amendment.

In (Jai Jai Ram Manoharlal v. National Building Material Supply)1, reported in A.I.R. 1969 S.C. page 1267 while allowing the amendment, the Apex Court observed thus---

"Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmade to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless 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 compensed for 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document