Back
ARUN KUMAR JHA
Daya Nand Singh S/o Late Dukh Haran Singh – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Arun Kumar Jha, J.
Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties.
2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.07.2017, passed by the learned Sub Judge-IV, Supaul in Title Suit No. 29 of 2009, whereby and whereunder the petitioner’s petition dated 30.01.2017 filed under Section 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 30.09.2014, the plaintiff, who is petitioner in the present case, filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for amendment in the plaint due to subsequent event. Vide order dated 17.09.2015, the amendment petition of the plaintiff was allowed. But, unfortunately the order of amendment could not be carried out in the plaint by the plaintiff. Thereafter, on 24.02.2016, the plaintiff filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code seeking extension of time for allowing him to carry out the order of amendment passed on 17.09.2015. The learned trial court allowed the petition filed under Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code on 26.04.2016 at the cost of Rs. 100/-. Still, the amendment cou
Procedural rules should not obstruct justice; amendments to plaints should be allowed to ensure real controversies are addressed, especially when no vested rights have accrued to the opposing party.
Judicial orders must be reasoned to ensure fair adjudication, and amendments to pleadings after trial commencement require justification to avoid prejudice.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the restriction on allowing amendments after the trial has commenced, as per the mandatory proviso of Order VI rule 17 of CPC.
The court upheld that amendments to a plaint after trial commencement require sufficient justification and diligence, which the plaintiff failed to provide.
Amendments to pleadings are permissible under Article 227 if they are necessary to resolve the real controversy, provided they do not cause undue prejudice to the opposing party.
The court ruled that a liberal approach should be taken towards permitting amendments in pleadings, especially when crucial facts are omitted, and delay alone does not justify rejection if trial has ....
Amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial must be supported by a finding of due diligence; failure to establish this finding renders the amendment impermissible.
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
