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

1995 Supreme(MP) 1100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHACHEENDRA DWIVEDI, J.
Malti – Appellant
Versus
M.P.E.B. – Respondent
C.R. No. 723 of 1995 (G)
Decided on : 02-08-1995

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : D.K. Kothari.
For the Respondent: V.K. Sharma, A.M. Naik.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 6 R. 17 – amendment of pleading – legal position sought to be inserted by way of amendment refused – order not unjustified – law or legal position not to be pleaded.

        Short Note

       1. This petition has been preferred by the plaintiffs – petitioners whose application for amending the plaint after about 25 years of pending litigation, has been rejected. The learned trial Court has rejected their application on the reasoning that the averment which are sought to be raised now by way of amendment in the plaint are the point which can be raised in arguments The point involving the law or the legal position are not required to be pleaded by the parties either in the plaint or in the written statement and when the Court has to decide the suit, the Court shall consider the legal position and the point raised in that regard by any of the parties in arguments.

       2. The petitioners have the fear that as some of their contentions have been turned down by the learned trial Court while rejecting the amendment application, the same objections would not be considered by the trial Court when the matter has to be finally heard and decided.

       3. Though I have found no substance in the revision petition and it is being dismissed, however, before parting with the order and taking care of the apprehension of the petitioners – plaintiffs, which is not wholly unwarranted, the learned trial Court is directed that the legal contentions raised before it by the petitioners or by the non – petitioners shall. be considered by it without being affected by the order which was passed by it while deciding the interim application of the plaintiffs proposing amendment in the plaint. The observations made by the Court while deciding the interim application cannot be said to be the decision on the objections which are required to be raised at the final hearing and are of no legal nature.

       With the above observations, this petition is dismissed.

       The copy of this order shall be sent under a receipt to the trial Court.

Malti vs M. P. E. B. - 1995 Supreme(MP) 1100
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 Back to top