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

1969 Supreme(MP) 8

R.J.BHAVE, SHIV DAYAL
DEEPCHAND – Appellant
Versus
SUKHLAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G.C.Koshal, H.S.RUPRAH

BHAVE, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant had filed the suit for partition and possession of 1/3rd share of the property left by one Mst. Rambhabai. No prayer for past mesne profits or future mesne profits was, however, made. In the relief clause a general relief was claimed, to the effect that any other relief or reliefs which the Court may hold the plaintiff to be entitled to be decreed. The plaintiff now desires to amend the relief clause to the following effect:

"that any such other relief or reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may hold the plaintiff to be entitled to be decreed to him including profits or mesne profits by directing an enquiry under Order 20, Rule 12 C. P. C. "

( 2 ) THIS application is opposed by the respondents on the ground that a large part of the future mesne profits has already been barred by limitation. The amendment should not, therefore, be allowed at this stage.

( 3 ) IN Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. AIR 1957 SC 357 their lordships held:

"it is no doubt true that Courts would, as a rule, decline to allow amendments, If a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into ac









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