IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J.JAMADAR
Wadhwa and Associates Realtors Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Sarin Technologies India Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N.J. JAMADAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners-Defendants assail the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 6 May 2024 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, whereby the Notice of Motion taken out by the Petitioners to grant leave to the Petitioners-Defendants to file additional written statement, came to be rejected.
3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred to in the capacity in which they are arrayed before the City Civil Court.
3.1 Defendant No.1 is a private limited company. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the directors of Defendant No.1. Under the Leave and Licence Agreement dated 1 August 2018, Defendant No.1 had granted the Respondent – Plaintiff a licence to use and occupy Unit No.104, on the first floor in the building known as ‘Platina’, situated at C-59, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai, with two car parking spaces (the subject premises), for a term of 36 months, commencing from 5 March 2018. A sum of Rs.49,93,920/- was
Sushil Kumar Jain vs. Manoj Kumar and Anr.
Bollepanda P. Poonacha and Anr. vs. K.M. Madapa
P.A. Jayalakshmi vs. H. Saradha and Ors.
Baldev Singh and Ors. vs. Manohar Singh and Anr.
M/s Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs. M/s Ladha Ram and Co.
Under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, leave for additional written statement denied if sought to retract clear admissions in original, as it prejudices plaintiff by substituting new case; counsel inadvertence....
Defendants cannot file an additional written statement to an amended plaint if their right to do so has been previously forfeited, as per the Code of Civil Procedure.
The right to file an additional written statement is contingent upon amendments in the plaint and must not introduce new claims, as established by prior court orders.
Amendments to written statements are permissible to clarify defenses but must not change the suit's nature; counterclaims must be timely filed before issues are framed.
The court clarified that there is no fixed time limit for filing additional written statements to counter-claims, and such filings can be made upon obtaining leave from the court.
Amendments to pleadings should not be allowed if they fundamentally change the nature and character of the case and if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation. Admissions in ....
Judicial discretion permits amendments to pleadings if justified, aiming for effective dispute resolution while maintaining procedural integrity.
A trial court may allow filing of an additional written statement under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC when trial has not commenced, emphasizing judicial discretion and the need to avoid prejudice in litigati....
The Court emphasized the necessity of proposed amendments for determining the real controversy between the parties and considered the due diligence requirement for allowing amendments after the comme....
The amended provision allowing 120 days to file a written statement under the CPC is applicable, and dismissal on procedural grounds without considering such amendment is unreasonable.
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.