Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P. ROUTRAY
Bidyut Lata Bardhan – Appellant
Versus
Sanjukta Bardhan@Ray – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of partition suit and defendant's amendment request. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding fraudulent influence on amendment request. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. guidelines on amendments as per supreme court rulings. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's rejection of amendment request based on insufficient evidence. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. confirmation of lower court's order and dismissal of c.m.p. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mrs. P. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 and Mrs. M. Pal, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties 2 to 5.
3. Present Opposite Party No.2 being the Plaintiff has filed the suit praying for partition and other consequential reliefs. Defendant No.1 (present Opposite Party No.3) is the son and brother of the Plaintiff whereas Defendant No.3 (present Opposite Party No.1), Defendant No.4 (present Opposite Party No.4) and Defendant No.5 (present Opposite Party No.5) are the daughters of common ancestor and sisters of the Plaintiff. Present Petitioner, who is Defendant No.2, is the wife of common ancestor and mother of the Plaintiff.
5. It is now contended on behalf of Defendant No.2 that taking advantage o
Amendments to pleadings cannot withdraw clear admissions made earlier, as it would be prejudicial to the opposing party; such amendments must align with the CPC regulations.
Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement require justification of delay and due diligence; lack of valid reasons leads to rejection to prevent prejudice.
Amendments to pleadings must not change the fundamental nature of the case or introduce contradictory claims and should be sought diligently within the timeframe set by law.
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.
The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC restricts the amendment of pleadings after the trial has commenced, unless due diligence is proven, and the proposed amendment is necessary to decide the real dispu....
Amendments to written statements post-commencement of trial are generally not permitted if they withdraw admissions made, in accordance with legal principles of procedural law.
Failures in due diligence and attempts to withdraw admissions in pleadings preclude amendments in civil suits post-evidence closure.
Amendment of plaint cannot be allowed where proposed amendment is not a product of subsequent event.
Practice and Procedure - Amendment petition rejected - Without any controversy, it may be said that proposed amendment is not a product of subsequent event, and learned court below having considered ....
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
