SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(Cal) 269

CHITTATOSH MOOKERJEE
Nilkantha Roy – Appellant
Versus
Dhirendra Nath Mullick – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Barun Roy Chowdhury ….for the petitioner
R. N. Mitra and Ranen Mitra ....for the opposite party

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the defendant in an ejectment suit brought by the plaintiff opposite party. He has obtained the present Rule against the order dated 5th December, 1974 of the learned Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court allowing amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff had originally instituted the said ejectment suit on the ground that the defendant was a defaulter within the meaning of clause (i) of sub-section (i) of section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The plaintiff by the aforesaid amendment is seeking to insert in the plaint the plea that the defendant is liable to be ejected also on the ground specified in the clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.

2. I am unable to hold that the learned Judge of the court below has committed any jurisdictional error by allowing the plaintiff's said prayer for amendment of his plaint in order to plead the ground specified in clause (a) of section 13(1) of the Act. The Court under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. may allow either party to alter or amend his pleading at any stage of the proceeding provided such amendments are necessary in order to determine the real questions in c







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top