1997 Supreme(Del) 820
B.GOEL
GAJ SINGH YADAV – Appellant
Versus
SATISH CHANDER YADAV – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
A.S.CHANDHIOK, Atul Kumar Sinha, F.K.Seth, G.L.RAVAL, GITA MITTAL, KULJIT RAVAL, S.M.BABU
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the amendment of pleadings:
- Legal Principle: Amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is permissible even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation, provided it does not introduce a new cause of action or raise a different case, but amounts to a different or additional approach to the same facts [judgement_subject][11000112870012][11000112870013][11000112870017].
- Case Context: The case involves a suit for partition where defendants 14 and 16 challenged the legality of statements made on their behalf by their attorney, alleging lack of authorization and collusion with the plaintiff to reduce their share [11000112870004][11000112870005][11000112870016].
- Specific Amendments Sought: The applicants sought to: (1) change the application label to include Order 23 Rule 3; (2) clarify that their 1/12th share was undisputed; (3) plead that the decree was obtained by fraud and collusion by an unauthorized attorney; and (4) argue the decree contravened Order 23 Rule 3 [11000112870006] (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- Court's Reasoning: The court held that these amendments did not introduce a new case but were merely a different approach to the same facts (the unauthorized statement and collusion). The amendment was deemed necessary to determine the real question in controversy and for a just decision [11000112870017][11000112870018].
- Precedents Cited: The judgment relied on Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, A. K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation Ltd., and M/s. Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram to support the view that amendments should be allowed unless they are malafide or cause uncompensatable injury to the opponent [11000112870014][11000112870015][11000112870016].
- Final Decision: The application for amendment under Section 152 and 151 CPC was allowed subject to the payment of Rs. 1,000.00 as costs by the applicants to the plaintiff [11000112870018][11000112870019].
J. B. Goel,j.
( 1 ) BY this order two applications, IA No. 7801/95 under Section l52 read with Section 151of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the code ) and IA No. 1327/97 under Order 6 Rule 17 is for amendment of the first application are being disposed of. These applications have been filed by defendants No. 14 and 16.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff had filed a suit for partition of immovable properties situated at Delhi (Schedule A) and houses and agricultural land situatad in village kosli, District Rohtak, (Schedule B) left by his deceased grand-father shiv sahai, the common ancestor. Shiv Sahai had three sons, namely, Surat Singh , Naval Singh and Narain Singh. Plaintiff (who is son from his first wife Smt. Hukam Kaur) and defendants 2 to 9 are the heirs from second Wife of Surat Singh; defendants 10 and 11 are descendants/heirs of Naval Singh; while defendants 13 to 16 are the daughters of Narain Singh. Defendants 1 and 12 have died during the trial. Plaintiff had claimed I/12th share out of the share of his father Surat Singh. The suit was being contested by defendants 1 to 9 who had propounded a registered will dated 23. 7. 1958 executed by Surat Singh alleging that Surat Sing
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
