Back
SUNITA YADAV
Nihal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Savitri Bai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeal and initial court decisions (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments by both parties regarding the amendment (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's review of procedural laws and remand authority (Para 5 , 11 , 13 , 17 , 21) |
| 4. legal reasoning about lack of relief and amendment (Para 6 , 9 , 10 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. application of specific provisions of law (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 14) |
| 6. final ruling and directions to the lower court (Para 22 , 23) |
ORDER :
Sunita Yadav, J.
This Misc. Appeal Order 43, Rule 1(u) of CPC has been filed against the order dated 18-7-2019 passed by First Additional District Judge Sironj, District Vidisha (M.P.) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 5-A/2017 whereby, the judgment and decree passed dated, 30-11-2016 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Sironj District Vidisha (M.P.) has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back for giving an opportunity to plaintiff to amend the plaint and seek the recovery of possession.
2. The facts in brief to decide the present appeal are that plaintiffs-Imrat Bai, Collector Singh and Dehsraj Singh filed a civil suit for declaration of title and possession in respect to disputed land bearing survey No. 400 area 1.063 hectare, min 400
The court held that a request for amendment not made in the original pleading cannot be granted, emphasizing the necessity of specificity in claims under the Specific Relief Act.
Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act allows the plaintiff to seek the refund of earnest money or deposit at any stage of the proceeding and overrides the Code of Civil Procedure in permitting amendm....
Amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC are strictly scrutinized, especially after trial commencement, and remands should only occur under justifiable circumstances, not routinely.
The Court may allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings for just decision of the case and to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties.
The appellate court upheld that plaintiffs' title validly established, and amendments to pleadings for possession did not change the suit's nature, ensuring compliance with statutory limitation.
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
