Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for B. K. N. Pillai VS P. Pillai...
B. K. N. Pillai VS P. Pillai - 1999 10 Supreme 229 : Amendment of pleadings that amounts to depriving the other side of the benefit of admission can be permitted if the proposed amendment is not inconsistent or repugnant to existing pleas, is an alternative or extension of the original plea, and does not result in irreparable prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs. In this case, the defendant sought to amend the written statement to raise an alternative plea that if found to be a licensee, he would be entitled to the benefit of Section 60(b) of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. The court held that this amendment was not legally impermissible merely because it involved a change in position, as it did not amount to withdrawing an admission in a manner that would cause irreparable harm. The court emphasized that amendments should be allowed in the interests of justice, particularly when the other party can be compensated by costs, and that the purpose of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to enable parties to present the real controversy in the suit. Therefore, such an amendment is permissible if it does not alter the cause of action or create mutually destructive allegations, and is subject to the condition of compensating the other side through costs.Checking relevance for Gautam Sarup VS Leela Jetly...
Gautam Sarup VS Leela Jetly - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 988 : Amendment of pleading that amounts to depriving the other side of the benefit of admission cannot be permitted unless it is shown that permitting such amendment would be unjust and result in prejudice against the opposite side which cannot be compensated by costs or would deprive him of a right which has accrued to him with lapse of time. Amendment should generally be allowed unless such prejudice is established.Checking relevance for Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad VS Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead) Thr. Lrs. ...
Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad VS Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead) Thr. Lrs. - 2005 0 Supreme(SC) 117 : Amendment of pleadings cannot be permitted if it amounts to depriving the other side of the benefit of admission, as such an amendment would undermine the principle that parties are bound by their own pleadings and could not be allowed to circumvent prior admissions through strategic pleading changes.Checking relevance for Ram Niranjan Kajaria VS Sheo Prakash Kajaria...
Ram Niranjan Kajaria VS Sheo Prakash Kajaria - 2015 7 Supreme 144 : Amendment of a pleading that amounts to wholly withdrawing a prior admission made in the written statement cannot be permitted, especially after a long delay (such as 20 years), as such an amendment would deprive the other party of the benefit of the admission. While an admission in pleadings can be clarified or explained by way of amendment, it cannot be wholly withdrawn. The court has held that a categorical admission made in pleadings is binding and cannot be resiled from through amendment, as it would undermine the principle that admissions in pleadings are conclusive and constitute a waiver of proof. The basis of the admission may be challenged in substantive proceedings, but the admission itself cannot be erased by amendment.Checking relevance for CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE ASSOCIATION VS UNION OF INDIA...
Checking relevance for SOM PRAKASH RASTOGI VS 4th ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE, MORADABAD...
SOM PRAKASH RASTOGI VS 4th ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE, MORADABAD - 1997 0 Supreme(All) 821 : Yes, an amendment to a pleading that amounts to withdrawing an admission and asserting an alternative claim (such as ownership instead of an easement right) can be permitted if it does not change the nature or character of the suit. The court held that a plaintiff may rely upon different rights alternatively, and there is nothing in the Civil Procedure Code that prevents a party from making inconsistent sets of allegations and claiming relief thereunder in the alternative. In this case, the amendment to withdraw the admission of an easement right and claim ownership of the land was allowed because it did not alter the fundamental nature of the injunction suit, and the plaintiff was entitled to pursue alternative legal bases for relief.
