RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY
G. Rajan S/o Late Shri Gopalan Nair – Appellant
Versus
M. S. Rajkumar, S/o Mannual Raj – Respondent
ORDER :
Heard.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the learned Xth Civil Judge Class-II Durg, Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No. 44-A/2013 whereby an application moved by defendant No.1 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has been rejected.
2. The facts of the present case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit on 01.03.2013 for the declaration of title and permanent injunction against the petitioner wherein the plaintiff prayed that a declaration be issued in his favour to the effect that the plaintiff may be declared the owner of the suit property situated in Village Risali, Patwari Circle No. 65/19, Survey No.321 ad-measuring 1624 sq. ft. and the construction situated over it known as ‘Surya Restaurant’ and also sought relief that he may be permitted to mutate his name in the revenue records.
3. The original defendant No.1 namely, G. Rajan met with an accident and became mentally unfit therefore, an application under Order 32 of the CPC was moved by his wife to pursue the civil suit and contest the case as the next friend which was allowed vide order dated 11.04.2017. She filed the written statement on 16.08.2017. In the written statement, i
State of Bihar and others v. Modern Tent House and another
Raj Kumar Bhatia v. Subhash Chander Bhatia
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited
MCD v. State of Delhi and another reported in (2005) 4 SCC 605
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of due diligence in seeking amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial, as well as the purpose of the amendment to cu....
The power to strike out pleadings under Order VI Rule 16 of the CPC should be exercised sparingly and with extreme care, caution, and circumspection.
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 that change the nature of a suit are impermissible, and courts must adhere to previous orders regarding necessary party impleadment.
A categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment. The attempt to change the entire stand from denying the execution of the agreement to admitti....
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.