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

1986 Supreme(HP) 28

MANISANA
ANIMA ROY – Appellant
Versus
ASHA RANI BISWAS – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Manisana, J—This revision petition arises from the order, dated 19-2-1986 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge (I), Gauhati in T. S. No. 2 of 1982.

2. In T. S. No. 2 of 1982, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment under Order 6, Rule 7, C. P. C. By that amendment petition, the plaintiff sought by way of amendment to insert two additional reliefs one for declaration and possession of the firm, Joy Kali Trunk Factory and the other for money decree after rendition of accounts, and necessary facts for claiming the reliefs. The learned Judge allowed the amendment under order dated 19-2-1986, hence this revision petition.

3. In Ganesh Trading v. Maji Ram, AIR 1978 SC 484, the Supreme Court has held that if a plaintiff seeks to alter the cause of action itself and to introduce indirectly through an amendment of his pleading, an entirely new or inconsistent cause of action, amounting virtually to the substitution of a new plaint or new cause of action in place of what was originally there, the Court will refuse to permit it, if it amounts to depriving the party against which the suit is pending of any right which may have accrued in its favour by lapse of time. 4


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