Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Dhanoki Mahto @ Dhanuki Mahto son of late Duar Mahto – Appellant
Versus
Pawan Kumar Rajgarhia, son of late Banshidhar Rajgarhia @Banshilal Rajgarhia – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1 and Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the O.P.Nos. 1 and 8 to 10, who are the proforma opposite parties.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 03.01.2023, passed in Original Suit No. 128 of 2012, by the learned Sub-Judge-III, Giridih, by which, the petition dated 27.07.2022 filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant under Order-VI Rule-17 read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected by the learned court.
3. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that one Title Suit No. 128 of 2012 was instituted by Pawan Kumar Rajgarhia in the court of Sub-Ordinate Judge, Giridih against 13 defendants including this petitioner, in which, the plaintiff has sought relief for declaration and confirmation of his indefeasible and subsisting right, title and possession on and upon suit properties which is described in Item No. I and II of Schedule-A of the plaint i.e. the land measuring an area
Amendments to pleadings should not change the fundamental nature of the case, and withdrawing clear admissions is impermissible under the CPC.
Amendments to pleadings are permissible under Article 227 if they are necessary to resolve the real controversy, provided they do not cause undue prejudice to the opposing party.
Amendments to pleadings should be allowed to ensure effective adjudication, provided they do not alter the basic structure of the suit or infringe upon the rights of the opposing party.
Amendments to pleadings must not change the fundamental character of the suit and should be sought with due diligence; otherwise, they may be rejected.
Amendments under Civil Procedure Code should be allowed to resolve real questions in controversy, provided they do not change the nature of the suit or cause undue hardship to the other party.
The amendment of a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 is not permissible if it alters the fundamental nature of the suit.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, provided they do not change the nature of the suit or introduce new causes of action that would prej....
Amendments to pleadings post-trial require showing of due diligence, and must not alter the fundamental nature of the case, or cause undue prejudice to the opposing party.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
