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

1990 Supreme(Ker) 62

RADHAKRISHNA MENON
Oskar Louis – Appellant
Versus
Saradha – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The second defendant is the revision petitioner.

2. The order under challenge is one by which the court below has allowed the application I.A.No.3724/88 seeking amendment of the plaint. The order reads:-

"This is a petition filed by the plaintiff to amend the plaint. The defendant filed strong objections. The main objection is that if it is allowed it will work out injustice to the defendant. I cannot agree with that view. The second objection is that it is highly belated. It is true that the petition is highly belated. It does not mean that the petition cannot be allowed. Hence I allow the petition on payment of cost of Rs.200/-. For payment of cost".

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the amendment is allowed the character of the suit will be changed. In other words the additional facts sought to be introduced in the plaint by the amendment would enable the plaintiff to rest his suit on a different cause of action.

4. Is the above argument sustainable, is the question before me. To get an answer, one has to ascertain the meaning of the word 'cause of action'. Generally stated it means every fact which it is necessary to establish to support righ








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