Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Parveen Garvi – Appellant
Versus
Aviva Life Insurance Company India Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background on termination and earlier legal proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments for amendment due to changed circumstances affecting employment. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. legal basis for allowing amendments under relevant provisions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. rationale for prioritizing equitable justice in procedural matters. (Para 26 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. conclusion allowing the amendment for specific damages. (Para 32 , 34) |
Judgment :
Sudeepti Sharma, J.
The present revision petition is filed for setting aside order dated 25.07.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram, whereby, application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. The petitioner has also assailed order dated 19.10.2023, passed by learned Appellate Court by which the first amendment application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was terminated from service vide order dated 09.10.2014. Aggrieved by the same he filed civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction in the year 2015. The civil suit was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.
The necessity of allowing amendments for advancing justice prevails over procedural delays, emphasizing the importance of specific remedies in litigation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Sections 21 and 40 of the Specific Relief Act and Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C mandate the court to allow the plaintiff to seek an ....
In a suit for specific performance of contract, plaintiff may also claim compensation for its breach in addition to such performance.
(1) Amendment of plaint – Where aspect of delay is arguable, prayer for amendment could be allowed and issue of limitation framed separately for decision.(2) Amendment of written statement – Princip....
Amendments to pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC should be liberally allowed unless they cause serious injustice or change the nature of the suit.
The principle of res judicata prevents re-agitation of previously decided issues in subsequent applications, thus maintaining procedural integrity in litigation.
The court emphasized the importance of bona fide amendments and a liberal approach to avoid multiplicity of litigations while considering applications for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should be allowed if necessary for determining real issues, provided they do not cause injustice to the other 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
