Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
SANJA Y KUMAR DWIVEDI, J
Girja Yadav, Son Of Late Ram Prasad Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Radha Kuar Widow Of Late Jugeshawar Ram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 to 4.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 4.7.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-VIII, Palamau at Daltonganj in the Original Suit No.134 of 2019 whereby the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C was rejected by the learned court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Original Suit No.134 of 2019 was instituted for declaring the sale deed No.1006 of 2010 not binding on plaintiff and the plaintiff put to be in possession over the suit land. She submits that one petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed before the learned court for changing the schedule of the property and the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the same by the impugned order dated 4.7.2022 on the ground that it will change the nature of the suit property. She submits that the learned court has erred in saying so that only internal area was required to be rectified. On this ground, she submits that the impugned order may kindly be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party
A subsequent petition for amendment is barred by res-judicata if a similar petition was previously dismissed without challenge.
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 should be liberally allowed for effective adjudication unless they cause injustice to the other party.
Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement may be allowed if they do not fundamentally alter the suit's nature or cause prejudice, supporting judicial efficiency and justice.
Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement are not allowed unless due diligence is shown; allowing the amendment here would prejudice the plaintiff's case.
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.
A court can deny amendment requests under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC if due diligence is lacking after trial commencement.
Amendments to pleadings should be allowed if necessary for effective adjudication, provided they do not change the nature of the suit or cause injustice to the other party.
Court ruled that procedural amendment requests should be allowed even after the trial begins, provided they clarify existing claims and do not introduce new issues.
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
