Back
MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Kashinath @ Kallu – Appellant
Versus
Rajeev Kumar Mishra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Manish Kumar Nigam, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief :
3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents instituted Original Suit No. 26 of 2018 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalalabad, Shahjahanpur against the defendants-petitioners for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants-petitioners from obstructing the right of way of the petitioners by putting a lock on the door lying between the two houses. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents was that the plaintiffs-respon
Amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are permissible if they do not change the fundamental character of the suit and aim to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Allowing amendments to a plaint requires clarity on possession claims, which should not evade established jurisdictional considerations.
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 amendment of the pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not alter the nature and character of the suit if the amendment is predicated on the same facts and the same document.
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
