Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS
Manoj Kumar Meharia – Appellant
Versus
Netai Bhattacharya – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's jurisdiction under article 227 (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against the amendment application (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. justification for allowing amendments (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. principles for courts' discretion in amendments (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. nature of the proposed amendments (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. final order and affirmation of lower court (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS, J. :-
1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated January 8, 2025 passed by the Court of Learned Civil Judge 5th Court, Howrah in Title suit No. 1415 of 2018 allowing the application filed by the plaintiff/ Respondent herein under Order 6 Rule 17 read with 151 of CPC stands allowed with a cost of Rs. 500.The learned Court also rejected the application under order XI Rule 1 CPC by the same order but the order allowing the application for amendment is under challenge before this Court.
2. It appears from the materials on record that the Opposite Parties herein filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the present petitioner as well as the Opposite Parties which was registered as Title suit N
Amendments to pleadings in civil suits must be granted if necessary for effective adjudication, provided they do not cause harm to the opposing party, affirming a liberal approach in such matters.
Amendments to written statements after commencement of trial require stringent adherence to procedural rules, especially regarding justification for delay and ensuring no change in the nature of the ....
Amendment of Written Statement – Inordinate delay in filing application for amendment of written statement cannot be allowed.
Court ruled that procedural amendment requests should be allowed even after the trial begins, provided they clarify existing claims and do not introduce new issues.
Amendments to a plaint are permissible for effective resolution of disputes, but claims that are time-barred cannot be allowed, especially when they would divest the opposing party of accrued rights.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's emphasis on minimizing litigation and allowing amendments to determine the real question in controversy between the parties.
A court can deny amendment requests under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC if due diligence is lacking after trial commencement.
Amendments to pleadings post-trial commencement are not permissible unless due diligence is shown, ensuring they do not alter the fundamental character of the case.
The Appellate Court may keep an amendment application in abeyance pending appeal to ensure substantive rights are not jeopardized, allowing for a comprehensive decision post-hearing.
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
