RAJNESH OSWAL
Kiran, W/o Rajinder Singh Jamwal – Appellant
Versus
Balbir Singh Jamwal, S/o Late th. Mukand Singh – Respondent
ORDER :
CM No. 1/2017
1. The respondent No.1/non-applicant, who happens to be the father-in-law of the applicant/appellant and father of the respondent No. 2 respectively, filed a suit against appellant and the respondent No.2 for possession in respect of four rooms, one store, two bath rooms and temporary kitchen in House No. 6-A Extension, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and also for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant and respondent No. 2 from interfering in any manner in respect of two rooms, one kitchen, one bath room, lobby in possession of the respondent No. 1 or changing or altering the nature of property or creating any encumbrance upon the said property. The suit for possession was filed by the respondent No. 1, claiming to be owner of the abovementioned property because of the continuous quarrel between the applicant/appellant and respondent No. 2, which had become a source of nuisance for the respondent No. 1 and his wife.
2. The applicant/appellant and respondent No. 2 filed their written statements separately. The applicant/appellant in her written statement pleaded that she was a lawful tenant of the respondent No. 1 and the suit for possession and permanent
Amendment of pleadings at the appellate stage should be allowed only in rarest of rare cases. The court should consider the issue of prejudice and the genuineness of the reasons for the amendment. Wi....
The court upheld a liberal approach to amendments in pleadings, allowing inconsistencies unless they cause prejudice, emphasizing the need for effective adjudication of the real issues.
Tenancy rights persist despite property destruction; claims of tenancy surrender require substantial proof, as verbal agreements are recognized under law.
The duty of the advocate to obtain relevant instructions and the need to avoid penalizing litigants for unintentional omissions.
Amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are permissible if they do not change the fundamental character of the suit and aim to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Allowing amendments to a plaint requires clarity on possession claims, which should not evade established jurisdictional considerations.
Amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial are restricted and require demonstration of due diligence to be permitted.
Amendment of Written Statement – Inordinate delay in filing application for amendment of written statement cannot be allowed.
The court emphasized the right to amend pleadings in the interest of justice, prioritizing substantive rights over procedural technicalities.
Amendments to written statements after commencement of trial require stringent adherence to procedural rules, especially regarding justification for delay and ensuring no change in the nature of the ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.