ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI
Stanislaus J. T. D’Souza (since deceased) : Mrs. Katherine Anne D’Souza – Appellant
Versus
Federick Cyril Braganza – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This Petition under Article 227 has been filed assailing order dated 10/02/2020 whereby learned Appellate Bench, Small Causes Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application No.35 of 2020 and thereby confirmed the order dated 16/11/2019 passed by learned Small Causes Court, Mumbai rejecting Application for amendment of written statement and appointment of Commissioner.
2. The Respondents are the legal representatives of the original Plaintiff-Joanita Braganza (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Plaintiff’). The Petitioners are the legal representatives of the original Defendant - Stanislaus J.T. D’Souza (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Defendant’).
3. The dispute is in respect of premises being flat No.F/4 in building Fairville Estate, Plot No.68, Juhu, Vile Parle. The said premises (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit premises’) admeasures 670 sq. feet and comprises of 02 bedroom, hall and kitchen with 02 sanitary blocks. The Plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises. In the year 1972, the Plaintiff had entered into a leave and license agreement in favour of the Defendant and put him in possession of the suit premises. In the year 1994, the Plaintiff filed a suit for ev
Baldev Singh and ors. v/s. Manohar Singh and another
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal vs. K.K.Modi & Ors.
The Court should be liberal in allowing the amendment of pleadings if it is necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties and does not cause prejudice to the other side. Delay in fi....
Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify absence of material relevant in plaint.
The duty of the advocate to obtain relevant instructions and the need to avoid penalizing litigants for unintentional omissions.
Amendments can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings to determine the real controversy between the parties, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. A hyper-technical....
The amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be rejected if it's belated and lacks due diligence, especially when it does not materially impact the bona fide requirement.
Categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment.
Bona fide requirement of landlord must be assessed based on actual need at the time of filing; subsequent events do not overshadow genuine intent if prior evidence supports the claim.
Point of Law : Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with amendment of pleadings which provides that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend ....
Amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial are restricted and require demonstration of due diligence to be permitted.
Courts cannot examine merits while deciding plaint amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC; Article 227 does not permit High Courts to reassess evidence or interfere with discretionary orders absent jur....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.