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

1985 Supreme(Raj) 346

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
G.M.Lodha, J.
Smt. Kamla - Appellant
Versus
Samast Panch Visha Hummad, Galiakot - Respondent
S.B. Civil 2nd Appeal No. 298 of 1973.
Decided On : 25-01-1985

Advocates:
For the Appellant:Noratan Mal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:N.P. Gupta, Advocate.

In the interest of justice, the court may allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint and proceed with the case afresh in the trial court.

Headnote:

Amendment of Plaint - Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act - The court allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint for taking the grounds required under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act and proceed with the case afresh in the trial court.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff requested to amend the plaint to include grounds required under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, which had become applicable to the area where the suit property is situated.

Finding of the Court:

The court found it reasonable and just to allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint and proceed with the case afresh in the trial court.

Issues: The issue was whether the plaintiff should be allowed to amend the plaint and proceed with the case afresh in the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that in the interest of justice, the plaintiff should be permitted to amend the plaint and proceed with the case afresh in the trial court.

Final Decision: The judgment and decree of both the lower courts were set aside, and the appeal was accepted. The trial court was directed to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint and proceed with the suit afresh.

JUDGMENT

1. - Mr. Gupta learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be in the interest of justice if the plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint for taking the grounds as would now be required under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act which has become applicable to the area where the suit property is situated and then proceed with the case afresh in trial court. This request appears to reasonable and just and in view of the facts and circumstances it would be in the interest of justice to allow it.

2. Consequently, it is not necessary to give in detail the facts of the case and the submissions made by Mr. Singhvi and the reply of Mr. Gupta.

3. All that is required to be mentioned is that both the learned counsel agree that the appeal should be accepted and the judgment of both the courts below be set aside and the case be remanded to the trial court for fresh decision after permission for amendment of the plaint and further proceeding by filing written statement framing of fresh issues, permitting both the parties to lead evidence and then decide the case according to law.

4. It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment and decree of both the lower courts are set aside and the appeal is accepted. The trial court would not permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint and then proceed with the suit afresh.

5. The parties would bear their own costs throughout.Appeal allowed.

*******


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 Back to top