Back
1989 Supreme(All) 255
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. N. DIKSHITA
SATYA PRAKASH - Appellant
Versus
RAJENDRA PRASAD - Respondents
CIV. REVN. 123 Of 1989
Decided On : 05/04/1989
Shesh Kumar, Suresh Chandra Verma
Courts are required to be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings, and the admission made by the parties may be withdrawn or explained away.
Headnote:
Amendment of Pleadings - Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. - The court allowed the application for amendment of pleadings, citing the need for liberal approach in granting such prayers and the ability to withdraw or explain away admissions made by the parties. The court found no compelling reasons to interfere with the lower court's discretion in allowing the amendment.
Fact of the Case:
The revision was filed against the order allowing an application for amendment of pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the revision to be ill-merited and an abuse of the process of law. It upheld the lower court's decision to allow the amendment, citing the need for a liberal approach in granting such prayers and the ability to withdraw or explain away admissions made by the parties.
Issues: The main issue was the decision of the lower court to allow the application for amendment of pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in granting prayers for amendment of pleadings and the ability to withdraw or explain away admissions made by the parties. It found no compelling reasons to interfere with the lower court's discretion in allowing the amendment.
Final Decision: The revision was rejected, and the court dismissed the revision.
( 1 ) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 28-10-1988 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge, Farrukhabad by which an application under Order 6, Rule, 17, C. P. C. filed by the applicants has been allowed.
( 2 ) HEARD counsel for the parties.
( 3 ) PALPABLY the revision is so ill-merited that it does not require even a detailed order. However, this Court in the case of Kamal Regmi Sharma v. Nepal Bank Ltd. and others, 1987 All, LJ 349, has held that the Courts are required to be extremely, liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of the pleadings. Further it is the settled law that the admission made by the parties may be withdrawn or explained away. The Court below has exercised its discretion in allowing the amendment. It does not require any interference, as no cogent reasons or compelling circumstances have been setforth. Neither any serious injustice nor any irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the applicants by allowing this amendment. Neither the Court below acted in exercise of the jurisdiction with any illegality nor with material irregularity.
( 4 ) AS observed above, the revision is wholly ill-merited and is an abuse of the process of law.
( 5 ) THE revision is rejected. Revision dismissed.
.
