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

2010 Supreme(Jhk) 173

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. MERATHIA
Ghulam Subhani ….Petitioner
Versus
Alok Kumar Das. ..Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 997 of 2009
Decided on 10.2.2010

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner:Mr. M.K. Laik, Sr. Advocate For Respondent No.3:Mr. Navin Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Order VI, Rule 17—Prayer for amendment—Court below not allowed where that should have been allowed—Amendment could not be denied—Such documents can be filed at the later stage—Order of Court below set aside and directed to pass fresh order. (Paras 3, 5 and 6)

Judgment

This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 3.2.2009 passed in T.S. No. 37/1997 by Sub Judge-VIth Court, Hazaribagh, allowing the prayer made on behalf of respondent no. 3Md. Jalil for amendment of the plaint. It is submitted by Mr. Laik that the issues were framed long back in this suit in the year 1997 and such prayer for amendment was made at the evidence stage. It is further submitted that such amendment could not be allowed after the trial had commenced on framing the issues in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the amended C.P.C. He also pointed out that the court below itself observed that certainly if the amendment is allowed, nature of the suit will change and that it will not remain a declaratory suit. He further submitted that while considering the prayer for amendment, learned court below has not considered the respective cases of the parties with regard to the prayer of amendment properly. With regard to some of the amendments, it is said that they are based on subsequent events and therefore, they have been allowed but it is not considered when such subsequent events came to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Admittedly, no paper or document in support of the pleading sought to be amended have been filed but the learned court below wrongly observed that on such ground, amendment could not be denied as such document could be filed at later stage.

Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted that in view of subsequent events, such amendment was allowed.

After hearing the parties, I am satisfied that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court concerned for passing a fresh order in accordance with law.

Parties are directed to cooperate in early disposal of the matter, and the court will pass orders in this regard, as early as possible and preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. However, no costs.


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