TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Partly Allowed, Amendment for Schedule-A Dismissed, Schedule-B Amendment Upheld. No Costs awarded.</h1> <h3>HEERALAL Versus KALYAN MAL & ORS.</h3> The appeal was partly allowed. The amendment application to withdraw admissions about 5 properties in Schedule-A was dismissed. However, the amendment ... - Issues Involved:1. Amendment of Written Statement2. Withdrawal of Admissions3. Appointment of Receiver4. High Court's Jurisdiction u/s 115 CPCSummary:1. Amendment of Written Statement:The appellant-plaintiff filed a civil suit in 1993 for partition of properties listed in Schedule-A and Schedule-B of the plaint. The contesting respondents, defendant nos. 1 and 2, admitted in their written statement that 7 out of 10 properties in Schedule-A were joint family properties. However, after 18 months, defendant no. 1 sought to amend the written statement, claiming the admissions were due to incomplete information and a heart attack suffered in 1989. The Trial Court dismissed the amendment application, finding it non-bona fide and intended to protract proceedings.2. Withdrawal of Admissions:The High Court allowed the amendment, stating that admissions could be explained or withdrawn in appropriate cases. However, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's order allowing the withdrawal of admissions regarding 5 out of 7 properties in Schedule-A could not be sustained. The Court emphasized that such an amendment would irretrievably prejudice the plaintiff by displacing his case based on the defendants' admissions.3. Appointment of Receiver:The plaintiff moved an application for the appointment of a receiver for the 7 admitted properties in Schedule-A. The amendment application by defendant no. 1 was filed only after this application, indicating a lack of bona fides.4. High Court's Jurisdiction u/s 115 CPC:The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in exercising its jurisdiction u/s 115 CPC by allowing the amendment. The Court referred to the decision in Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co., which held that amendments displacing the plaintiff's case based on admissions in the written statement should not be allowed. The Court distinguished the present case from other cases cited by the respondents, where inconsistent pleas did not displace admissions favoring the plaintiff.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed. The amendment application to withdraw admissions about 5 properties in Schedule-A was dismissed. However, the amendment regarding Schedule-B properties, which did not adversely affect the plaintiff's case, was upheld. No costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
