Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Amendment of Pleadings - Allowed upon payment of costs, typically Rs. 100 or higher depending on the case, with courts emphasizing that amendments should not cause undue prejudice to the other party. Courts often permit amendments to clarify or rectify pleadings, provided costs are paid and no significant prejudice occurs ["CUDISE TRINATH RAO VS SUDHANSU PRASAD PADNI - Orissa"] ["B. S. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd VS Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra - Delhi"] ["DINESH CHANDRA GUPTA vs RAJENDRA KUMAR KHANNA - Allahabad"] ["Dinesh Chandra Gupta VS Rajendra Kumar Khanna - Allahabad"] ["B.S. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. vs SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA - Delhi"] ["Kailas Srinivas vs The District Collector - Telangana"] ["BRUNDABAN SAHU VS PABITRA KUMAR SAHU - Orissa"] ["BRUNDABAN SAHU VS PABITRA KUMAR SAHU - Orissa"] ["Pavayammal VS Komarasami and others - Madras"] ["Kailas Srinivas vs The District Collector, - Telangana"] ["POLYMER CONNECT SDN BHD vs ADVENT PACKAGING SDN BHD - High Court"] [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MYS_MARSDENLR_2005_2782) ["BRUNDABAN SAHU VS PABITRA KUMAR SAHU - Orissa"] ["BRUNDABAN SAHU VS PABITRA KUMAR SAHU - Orissa"] ["Venezia Mobili (India) Pvt Ltd. VS Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Pvt Ltd. - Delhi"] ["Dakshayan Constructions Private Limited VS Bulakan Prasad - Jharkhand"].
Main Points:
Courts adopt a liberal approach, emphasizing justice and avoiding multiplicity of litigation, provided costs are paid and prejudice is minimized ["BRUNDABAN SAHU VS PABITRA KUMAR SAHU - Orissa"] ["Kailas Srinivas vs The District Collector, - Telangana"].
Insights:
The primary concern is preventing prejudice; amendments causing irreparable injury are generally disallowed ["BRUNDABAN SAHU VS PABITRA KUMAR SAHU - Orissa"] ["BRUNDABAN SAHU VS PABITRA KUMAR SAHU - Orissa"].
Conclusion:
References:- ["CUDISE TRINATH RAO VS SUDHANSU PRASAD PADNI - Orissa"]- ["B. S. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd VS Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra - Delhi"]- ["DINESH CHANDRA GUPTA vs RAJENDRA KUMAR KHANNA - Allahabad"]- ["Dinesh Chandra Gupta VS Rajendra Kumar Khanna - Allahabad"]- ["B.S. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. vs SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA - Delhi"]- ["Kailas Srinivas vs The District Collector - Telangana"]- ["BRUNDABAN SAHU VS PABITRA KUMAR SAHU - Orissa"]- ["BRUNDABAN SAHU VS PABITRA KUMAR SAHU - Orissa"]- ["Pavayammal VS Komarasami and others - Madras"]- ["Kailas Srinivas vs The District Collector, - Telangana"]- ["POLYMER CONNECT SDN BHD vs ADVENT PACKAGING SDN BHD - High Court"]- [](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/MYS_MARSDENLR_2005_2782)- ["Venezia Mobili (India) Pvt Ltd. VS Ramprastha Promoters & Developers Pvt Ltd. - Delhi"]- ["Dakshayan Constructions Private Limited VS Bulakan Prasad - Jharkhand"]
In the intricate world of Indian civil litigation, seeking to amend pleadings can be crucial for ensuring justice. But what if the court allows the amendment subject to a nominal cost, say Rs. 100, the plaintiff is ready to pay, yet the defendant ignores repeated reminders and refuses to accept it? This common yet frustrating scenario raises key questions under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, particularly Order 6 Rule 17.
If you're a plaintiff facing this roadblock—amendment of pleading is allowed with cost of 100 rupees and Plaintiff is ready to pay but after many reminders the defendant not responding willingly to receive the cost—you're not alone. This blog post breaks down the legal principles, judicial discretion, cost mechanisms, and practical steps forward, drawing from established case law. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Indian courts enjoy broad powers to permit amendments to pleadings at any stage to determine the 'real controversy' between parties. This discretion aims to prevent miscarriage of justice while balancing both sides' interests. As held, courts must consider if the amendment is necessary for proper adjudication, without causing undue prejudice or delay. Sicpa India Private Ltd. VS Kapil Kumar - 2014 0 Supreme(Del) 1587
Amendments are typically favored early, before issues are framed or evidence led. Even belated ones may be allowed if they clarify existing pleas without introducing a new cause of action. For instance, amendments necessary for deciding the real controversy should be allowed, even if they are belated, provided the opposite party can be compensated through costs. SATYA NARAIN AGGARWAL VS KAMLESH KUMARI - 1995 0 Supreme(Del) 530
Amendments that clarify or do not alter the suit's nature are routinely permitted. Vettikuti Naydamma VS Mupparaju Madhusudhana Rao - 1996 0 Supreme(AP) 212Vettikuti Naydamma VS Mupparaju Madhusudhana Rao - 1995 0 Supreme(AP) 137
Costs are not punitive but compensatory, covering the defendant's inconvenience, delay, or extra expenses from the amendment. Courts impose them judiciously, often Rs. 250-500 for routine cases, scaling with delay or complexity. Mohani VS Mst. Gopli @ Shanti - 1990 0 Supreme(Raj) 793Vettikuti Naydamma VS Mupparaju Madhusudhana Rao - 1996 0 Supreme(AP) 212Vettikuti Naydamma VS Mupparaju Madhusudhana Rao - 1995 0 Supreme(AP) 137
Costs must be paid within a stipulated time, or the amendment may be rejected. They deter abuse while promoting procedural efficiency. Mohani VS Mst. Gopli @ Shanti - 1990 0 Supreme(Raj) 793
Your situation—court allows amendment on Rs. 100 costs, you're ready to pay, but defendant stonewalls—highlights a practical challenge. Courts recognize that refusal shouldn't derail justice if the plaintiff acts in good faith.
Tendering Costs: Repeated reminders (e.g., via registered post or court notice) prove your readiness. If refused, deposit the amount in court. This satisfies the condition, as the purpose is compensation, not enrichment. Courts have wide powers under Order 6 Rule 17 to impose 'terms as just and proper.'
Judicial Approach: Amendments proceed if costs are tendered reasonably. In cases like yours, plaintiffs have succeeded by court deposit. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly, in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Babuli Khuntia VS Ram Abtar Modi - 2015 Supreme(Ori) 303
Due Diligence Requirement: Post-2002 CPC amendment, late applications need proof of 'due diligence.' Refusal by defendant doesn't absolve this, but your readiness strengthens your position. Lack of acceptance doesn't imply prejudice if compensated. Babuli Khuntia VS Ram Abtar Modi - 2015 Supreme(Ori) 303
In one instance, despite readiness pleas in written statements, courts focused on plaintiff's compliance. B.S. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs Sanjeev Kumar MalhotraB.S. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. vs SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA
Costs reflect stage and inconvenience: pre-issue (lower), post-evidence (higher). They ensure 'no injustice to the other side.' Babuli Khuntia VS Ram Abtar Modi - 2015 Supreme(Ori) 303
Navigating pleading amendments and cost refusals requires understanding CPC's balance of justice and efficiency. While defendants may delay by non-acceptance, proactive steps like depositing funds ensure your amendment takes effect. Indian courts, as seen in precedents, favor substance over form. For tailored guidance, engage a civil lawyer promptly.
Disclaimer: This post synthesizes case law for informational purposes. Laws evolve; outcomes vary by facts. Seek professional advice.
Subordinate Judge came to hold that though the petition was filed at a belated stage, yet considering that the hearing of the suit had not commenced, the amendment was to be allowed. Therefore, he accepted the prayer for amendment, subject to payment of cost of' Rupees 100/ -. ... While it is beyond a shadow of controversy that in the absence of a definite pleading that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perfor....
In para-8 of the written statement, a specific plea was taken by the defendant that the defendant was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement. In fact, the plaintiff was not ready to pay the balance consideration to execute the sale deed. ... ... (e) That the defendant was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed in terms of the Agreement to Sell dated 24.12.1997 and in fact, the #HL_STA....
In para-8 of the written statement, a specific plea was taken by the defendant that the defendant was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement. In fact, the plaintiff was not ready to pay the balance consideration to execute the sale deed. ... (e) That the defendant was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed in terms of the Agreement to Sell dated 24.12.1997 and in fact, the #HL_START....
Counsel for the revisionist has agreed to pay 6. Rs.10000/- as cost to the plaintiff for amendment application being refused to receive the rent and to issue rent receipt, hence the rent of August and September 2015 was sent through EMO on 03/1/2006 but plaintiff refused to receive the EMO.” ... No doubt, it is admitted in the written statement that rent was also tendered to the plaintiff but it could not be said that the ....
The view taken by the court below in rejecting the amendment application, is therefore not sustainable in law. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. Counsel for the revisionist has agreed to pay Rs.10000/- as cost to the plaintiff for amendment application being allowed. ... EMO on 03/1/2006 but plaintiff refused to receive the EMO." ... A perusal of the plaint assertions would show that in the entire plaint, there is no #HL_....
In fact, the plaintiff was not ready to pay the balance consideration to execute the sale deed. ... The defendant did not receive any sale consideration from the plaintiff, as defendant had entered into an agreement with Mr. Gopal Nigam, Company Secretary to the plaintiff company. ... (e)That the defendant was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed in t....
According to him there was no disagreement between plaintiff and the defendant department till the depositing of 1/10" of the bid cost including E.M.D of Rs.30,000/-which was deposited by the plaintiff at the time of tenders. ... not be possible for the plaintiff to commence the contract work in the beginning of the fourth month or within 100 clear days from the date of entering into the contract. ... The trial Court further held that plaintiff did #....
According to him there was no disagreement between plaintiff and the defendant department till the depositing of 1/10" of the bid cost including E.M.D of Rs.30,000/-which was deposited by the plaintiff at the time of tenders. ... , it would not be possible for the plaintiff to commence the contract work in the beginning of the fourth month or within 100 clear days from the date of entering into the contract. ... The trial Court further held that plaintiff#HL....
(3) These amendments did not come willingly and were made after the defendant pointed out the defects and deficiencies in the plaintiff's case. (4) The facts that the plaintiff seek to clarify were available since the filing of the main suit. ... [17] To allow the plaintiff to go back and insert the said clarification to the main pleading (Statement of Claim) would result in the defendant being allowed to re-file its defence, and most probably it w....
Patil to abide by the conditions which may be imposed, it is sufficient, in the circumstances of the present case, to direct the non - applicant No. 1 to pay the costs of the revision application, quantified at Rs. 100/- (Rupees One hundred). With these directions, the rule is discharged. ... The applicant, who was defendant No. 1 before the trial Court, challenges the order dated 11-7-1988 by which the trial Court permitted the plaintiff to incorporate in the plaint the portions which were to be introd....
In the wake of the above, the order dated 22.12.2007 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Cuttack in C.S. No. 301 of 2003 is hereby quashed. The trial court is directed to conclude the hearing of the suit by end of January, 2016. Accordingly, the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the counsel for the defendant no.1.
The defendants shall get opportunity to file additional written statement. The plaintiff shall pay a cost of Rs.30/-(Rupees Thirty) to the defendants for making such amendment. The suit be remanded to the trial court for allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the plaint for making a prayer for specific performance of contract. The amendment shall be effected within two months from the receipt of record of this suit.
The cheque as mentioned in prayer clause (b) to be issued by the Prothonotary and Senior Master at the earliest and in any case not later than three weeks from the date of this order being uploaded. The plaintiff is also directed to pay defendant no.2 a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh fifty thousand only) as cost. Counsel for the plaintiff seeks stay of the judgment.
The plaintiff is also directed to pay defendant no.2 a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh fifty thousand only) as cost. The cheque as mentioned in prayer clause (b) to be issued by the Prothonotary and Senior Master at the earliest and in any case not later than three weeks from the date of this order being uploaded. Counsel for the plaintiff seeks stay of the judgment.
Amendment of the plaintiff is allowed on payment of Rs.25,000 cost
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
