Back
SHAMPA SARKAR
Mansoor Alam – Appellant
Versus
Maqsood Alam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revisional application challenges dismissal of amendment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against amendment to written statement. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. court’s need for amendments for proper adjudication. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. legal standards governing amendments in pleadings. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court orders amendment and sets timeline for proceedings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Sarkar, J. - This revisional application has been filed challenging an order dated April 1, 2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 1629 of 2011. By the order impugned, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.
2. The defendant sought amendment of the written statement filed in connection with the suit of 2011.
3. According to Mr. Quasimuddin, learned advocate for the petitioner, the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The paragraph sought to be incorporated by way of an amendment is quoted below:
The court emphasized the importance of due diligence and bona fide, legitimate, and necessary amendments, while rejecting mala fide, worthless, and dishonest amendments.
Amendments to pleadings are allowed only when they're necessary for deciding existing disputes, not for introducing entirely new cases.
The court established that amendments to written statements can be allowed post-trial commencement if they clarify existing facts and do not prejudice the opposing party.
Amendment of Written Statement – Inordinate delay in filing application for amendment of written statement cannot be allowed.
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 ....
Practice and Procedure - Amendment petition rejected - Without any controversy, it may be said that proposed amendment is not a product of subsequent event, and learned court below having considered ....
Amendment of plaint cannot be allowed where proposed amendment is not a product of subsequent event.
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
