Back
VIKAS BAHL
Prem Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Poonam Walia – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Bahl, J.
This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar (Annexure P-8) vide which the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar had dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC for framing of the additional issues.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the additional issue, which is reproduced as under, is also required to be framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:-
1. Whether the defendants no.1 and 2 purchased the suit property under valuable consideration. OPD?”
3. It is submitted that for the said purpose, the petitioners-defendants had moved an application (Annexure P-7) which had been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 10.12.2024 and the said order is illegal and deserves to be set aside and the additional issue as proposed by the petitioners-defendants is required to be framed.
4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order is in acco
Existing legal issues sufficiently addressed the matter in controversy, making the request for additional issues unnecessary and delaying proceedings.
A court can deny amendment requests under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC if due diligence is lacking after trial commencement.
Omission to frame an issue would not vitiate the trial if the parties were aware of the issue and led evidence on it.
The framing of specific issues based on the pleadings of the parties is essential for the effective adjudication of a suit, and the trial court has the authority to do so under Order 14 of the Code o....
Amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed for effective adjudication unless they cause injustice to the other party.
Revision under Art.227 allows interference only in cases of jurisdictional errors or patent perversities, which were not found here.
Amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are not permitted after trial commencement unless due diligence is demonstrated, which was not shown in this case.
Court fees and limitation issues in civil proceedings were found compelling in determining the rejection of a revision petition under Article 227.
Court held that omissions in judgments can be corrected as clerical errors under CPC without affecting substantive rights; substantial issues remain for future determination in the appellate court.
The court emphasized that a huge unexplained delay in filing an amendment application, particularly at the concluding stage of a suit, cannot be ignored. It also highlighted the issue of limitation f....
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
