Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Uttam Maity, Son Of Late Dharnidhar Maity – Appellant
Versus
Anjana Mahatain, d/o Sri Balaram Mahato – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite parties no.1 and service of notice on behalf of the rest of the opposite parties has been dispensed with as they are found to be formal O.Ps.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 03.02.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-IV, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No.162 of 2010 whereby the petition filed by the plaintiff/O.P.No.1 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the suit has been allowed by the learned court at the time of final argument of the suit.
3. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner /defendant submits that the Original Suit No.162 of 2010 was instituted by the plaintiff /O.P.No.1 in the court of learned Sub Judge-I Jamshedpur in seeking declaration of registered sale deed no.3961 dated 22.5.2010 was executed by the O.P.No.2 in favour of the petitioner/defendant no.3 as void. He submits that after notice, the defendants and others have appeared and filed their
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.
The court emphasized the importance of bona fide amendments and a liberal approach to avoid multiplicity of litigations while considering applications for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which reads as amendment of pleadings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of due diligence, as contained in the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of CPC, and the factors necessary to be considered while decidin....
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should be allowed if necessary for justice and do not change the nature of the suit.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should be allowed if necessary for determining real issues, provided they do not cause injustice to the other party.
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.
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
