Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Birendra Mahto – Appellant
Versus
Tileshwari Devi, wife of Nita Munda – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for quashing order in a suit (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments on petition for document inclusion (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on procedural fairness (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. setting aside the previous order (Para 8) |
| 5. conclusion and order allowing petition (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 3-State.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 16.09.2022, passed in Original Suit No. 28 of 2018 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Khunti, by which, the petition filed under Order-VII, Rule- 14(3), read with Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned court.
3. Mr. Sharma, at the very outset submits that the nature of the prayer in the said petition was to bring on record the documents, however, the wrong provision has been mentioned in the petition being Order-XIII, Rule-4 read with Section 151 of the CPC and that has occurred inadvertently, however, the pray
Procedural justice necessitates that minor clerical errors should not prevent parties from presenting relevant evidence, affirming the significance of intent over technicality.
Amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed for effective adjudication unless they cause injustice to the other party.
A subsequent petition for amendment is barred by res-judicata if a similar petition was previously dismissed without challenge.
Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement are not allowed unless due diligence is shown; allowing the amendment here would prejudice the plaintiff's case.
A party not included in the original suit cannot claim rights in execution proceedings; courts must ensure all necessary parties are present to avoid frivolous claims.
The amendment of a plaint under Order VI Rule 17 is not permissible if it alters the fundamental nature of the suit.
A court can deny amendment requests under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC if due diligence is lacking after trial commencement.
Suit barred due to lack of objection against record of rights; civil court jurisdiction excluded under specific statutory provisions.
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
