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

1975 Supreme(Mad) 360

T.RAMAPRASADA RAO
Angammal – Appellant
Versus
Muthupechiammal Meenal – Respondent


Advocates:
N. Sivamani, for Petitioner.
K. Yamunan, for Respondents.

Order.- It is now well settled that the invocation of Order 6, rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure is possible only when the substance of the relief asked for in the original pleading is maintained, though in a different form it is sought to be corrected so as to suit the convenience of the litigant. In a case, however, when the amendment sought for by the plaintiff would alter the very foundation of the claim and the said amendment prima facie is distinct separate and independent of the original relief asked for, then it would not come within the purview of amendment of pleading at all. On the other hand, it would be a substitution of a relief which is different and not asked for in the original plaint. In the instant case, the respondents as the plaintiffs came forward with an application under Order 6, rule 17. Code of Civil Procedure under the following circumstances. In the plaint as originally filed the plaintiffs sought for a declaration that they were entitled to an easementary right over a particular portion of the suit house to a particular length. Later, they sought for an amendment by stating that no proper instructions were given to the advocate at the time when the origi




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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top