Back
ARUN KUMAR JHA
Yovraj Sinha – Appellant
Versus
Ram Lakhan Yadav – Respondent
JUDGMENT (CAV)
The petitioners have preferred the instant petition against the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the learned Munsif, Daudnagar, Aurangabad in Title Suit No. 115 of 1987 whereby the learned Munsif allowed the amendment petition dated 12.08.2016 filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for adding the relief of declaration of title and confirmation of possession in relief portion of the plaint.
2. From the records, it appears that Case No. 1741 of 1981 corresponding to Trial No. 99/1994 for a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was initiated in respect of certain lands before the Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad who passed an order on 19.04.1984 declaring the possession of the defendants/petitioners and restraining the plaintiffs/respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of defendants/petitioners till decision otherwise by a competent court. Against the order dated 19.04.1984, the plaintiffs/respondents preferred Criminal Revision No.41 of 1984/15 of 1986 which was rejected by order dated 23.05.1987 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Aurangabad. Thereafter, the plaintiffs/respondents filed Title Suit No. 115/1987 against these orders before the court o
(1) Amendment in plaint – Prayer for amendment is to be allowed if amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of controversy between parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.....
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC can be permitted even post-delay if they facilitate effective adjudication and do not cause injustice to the opposing party.
Amendments to pleadings are not permissible after trial commencement if they seek to re-agitate issues barred by res judicata.
The principle of res judicata prevents re-agitation of previously decided issues in subsequent applications, thus maintaining procedural integrity in litigation.
Amendment of plaint – If amendment is necessary for deciding real controversy between parties and for arriving at a just conclusion, such amendment could be allowed even at a late stage.
Amendments to pleadings post-trial require showing of due diligence, and must not alter the fundamental nature of the case, or cause undue prejudice to the opposing party.
Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview.....
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
