Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
On The Death Of Dilip Kumar Das His Legal RepresentativesKaushik Das S/O Late Dilip Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Kumar Jain S/O Shri Babulal Jain – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction and case background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for the amendment of plaint. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's analysis on the necessity of amendment. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's directive and conclusion. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. S. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent inspite of service being effect upon the respondent.
2. The petitioners herein have assailed the order dated 24.06.2019 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.154/2018 arising out of Title Suit No.11/2014 whereby the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Kamrup at Amingaon had rejected the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’).
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that on account of the inadvertence of the earlier counsel in not inserting the Schedule-A(i) to the plaint, the issues which arise for consideration before the suit cannot be properly adjudicated and it is under su
Inadherence to procedural requirements does not preclude necessary amendments for justice, provided they are due to inadvertent errors by legal representation.
The court emphasized that procedural technicalities should be rectified in the interest of justice, allowing for amendments and reconsideration of preliminary issues without unnecessary delays.
The court clarified that amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 require a demonstration of due diligence, rejecting late applications that merely correct previous errors without just cause.
Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement require demonstration of due diligence; extensions must not be granted mechanically.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC require due diligence; delays in seeking such amendments post-trial commencement can justify rejection to prevent prejudice to opposing parties.
An amendment to a plaint may be allowed to insert a relief within the limitation period, despite procedural lapses, emphasizing that technicalities should not obstruct justice.
Amendment in plaint – In terms of Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC, Court may at any stage of proceedings allow either of parties to alter or amend pleadings, in such manner or on such terms, as may be just.
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
