D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, A.A.SAYED
Vijay Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Harinarayan G. Bajaj – Respondent
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.—Admit. By consent of Counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal.
2. A Chamber Summons was moved before the Learned Single Judge for amending a written statement. The Learned Single Judge held by an order dated 7 December 2011 that an application for amendment of a written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is governed by the Limitation Act, 1963 and Article 137of the Schedule which applies to all applications made to a civil court would include an application for amendment of pleadings. The Learned Single Judge held that the right to apply for amendment of the written statement in this case arose on the day following the day on which the written statement was filed, on the ground that the amendment did not seek to bring on record new facts, but only an explanation regarding existing facts. Since the Chamber Summons was filed beyond a period of three years of the day on which the right to apply was held to have arisen, it was dismissed as being barred by limitation. However, the Learned Single Judge noted that but for the bar of limitation, he would have allowed the Chamber Summons for amendment. The Defend
Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben
Jugal Kishore Paliwal v. S. Sat Jit Singh
State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Municipal Council
Harihar Nath v. State Bank of India
S.K. Sahgal v. Maharaj Kishore Khanna
Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P. Kunhaliumma
Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli
Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabrawala
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.