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

2002 Supreme(P&H) 250

M.M.KUMAR
Mohar Pal – Appellant
Versus
Sunehra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Shri A.L. Jain, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

M.M. Kumar, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.3.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad dismissing the application of the defendant-petitioner seeking amendment of its written statement by adding para 6(A). The Civil Judge while dismissing the application has recorded the following reasons :

"After hearing both the counsel and perusing the case file the considered opinion of mine is that no doubt in respect of law of amendment of court should have a liberal approach and howsoever negligent omission shall be taken in consideration as has already been pressed upon by counsel for the plaintiff but at the same time it is also the settled law that among all, one of the purposes and objects of allowing amendment of the plaint is to avoid multiplicity of cases and, therefore, the amendment should be allowed in such a case where refusal of same would have been to drive the plaintiff to file a fresh suit which is not the situation of the present case. Further the court has discretion to allow an amendment of course the discretion has to be used in a judicial manner and the considerations while acting judicially which normally weigh
















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