SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Ker) 389

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
M. P. Rajasekharan Nair – Appellant
Versus
Raju – Respondent


Judgment :-

The question that has come up for consideration in this case is as to whether plaintiff could be permitted to amend the plaint and incorporate the averment regarding plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as provided under Sec. 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act and whether amendment if allowed would go against the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.

2. Plaintiff instituted that suit for specific performance in the year 1999. The case was included in the list for trial on 5-12-02. On the said day an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 CPC was filed for amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate the pleading of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff in getting the sale deed executed. Objection was filed by the defendant contending that if the amendment is allowed that would change the character of the suit and would cause prejudice to him. Contention was also raised that such an amendment cannot be allowed to view of amended provision of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. We may extract the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 for easy reference.

17. Amendment of pleadings:- The Court may at any stage of the proc





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top