Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P. ROUTRAY
Harijit Singh – Appellant
Versus
Raj Kaur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. amendment application context and original suit details. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. criteria for allowing amendments post commencement of trial. (Para 5 , 8 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. arguments regarding necessity of due diligence. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. withdrawal of admissions cannot be allowed without justification. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 14) |
| 5. final order rejecting the amendment application. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. A. Sarangi, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 1 & 2.
3. The plaintiffs, who are present Opposite Parties 1 & 2, have filed C.S.No.162 of 2017 praying for reliefs to declare RSD dated 18th May 2010 as null and void on the ground of fraud as well as the Power of Attorney dated 28th January 2005. They have further prayed for other consequential reliefs including correction in the ROR and eviction of defendants No.1 & 2 from the suit house.
5. Learned trial court rejected the prayer for amendment mainly on the ground that defendants no.1 & 2 have failed to justify due diligence on their part in bringing the amendment to the written statement and moreover, certain admissions made in the written statement are now sought t
Failures in due diligence and attempts to withdraw admissions in pleadings preclude amendments in civil suits post-evidence closure.
The amendment application was dismissed as it was found to be mala fide, aiming to introduce new pleas and withdraw previous admissions, lacking due diligence and justification.
A categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment. The attempt to change the entire stand from denying the execution of the agreement to admitti....
Amendments to pleadings are allowed to avoid injustice but cannot permit withdrawal of admissions that would prejudice the opposite party or alter the nature of the suit.
Amendments to pleadings after the commencement of trial are restricted and require demonstration of due diligence to be permitted.
Point of Law : Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with amendment of pleadings which provides that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend ....
Categorical admission made in the pleadings cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by way of an amendment.
The court established that amendments to written statements can be allowed post-trial commencement if they clarify existing facts and do not prejudice 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
