Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ
RAJMAL @ RAJESH CHANDANMAL LUNIYA & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
PANKAJ AMRUTLAL NAVALAKHA & ORS. – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the court has granted the petition to allow the amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, thereby permitting the appellants to amend their pleadings to include consequential relief without altering the nature of the suit (!) . The court has explicitly set aside the previous orders that had declined the amendment, indicating that the amendments are now permissible and the suit is to proceed accordingly (!) .
Given this context, the petition cannot be refused or disallowed, as the court has already allowed the amendment and directed the civil court to proceed with the matter expeditiously, including permitting the respondents to file an amended written statement (!) . Therefore, the legal position and the court’s order affirm that the petition to amend the plaint should be granted, and the suit should move forward based on the amended pleadings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of suit remains unchanged despite amendment application. (Para 2 , 3) |
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant-plaintiffs are aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2023, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, whereby the Revision Petition, challenging the order of the Trial Court vide which their prayer for amendment of the plaint was turned down, has been upheld. The Civil Court as well as the High Court, thus, have declined the prayer for amendment of the Suit, inter alia, on the ground that the amendment sought was inconsistent and that the appellants have not shown due diligence as is mandated under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
3. The controversy in the amendment of the Suit has arisen in the backdrop that the appellants are owners of the land. They entered into an agreement dated 30.06.2011 with the respondents, who are developer-cum-builders. This was a development agreement whereunder the appellants assigned a part of their property to the Signature Not Verified Digitalyr sigeneds bypondents for its commercial development. The appellants’ case is SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2025.10.18
12:16:29 IST Reason:
that the respondents have failed t
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
