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>Court rejects defendants' amendment, upholds trial decision. Appeal dismissed, costs to defendants.</h1> <h3>MODI SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS CO. LTD. Versus LADHA RAM & CO.</h3> The High Court upheld the trial court's decision to reject the defendants' application to amend their written statement, specifically paragraphs 25 and ... - Issues involved: Application for amendment of written statement and substitution of paragraphs 25 and 26.The appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad regarding a suit for a decree of Rs. 1,30,000 filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. The defendants sought to amend their written statement, specifically paragraphs 25 and 26, approximately 3 years after filing, proposing new contentions related to the plaintiff's role as a mercantile agent. The trial court rejected the amendment application, citing that it aimed to resile from previous admissions and was not bonafide. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that allowing the amendments would introduce a completely new case and prejudice the plaintiff.The trial court's decision was deemed correct as the defendants were not permitted to entirely change the case presented in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the written statement. While inconsistent pleas are allowed in pleadings, the proposed substitution sought to displace the plaintiff from previous admissions, denying the plaintiff the opportunity to use those admissions to their advantage. The High Court rightly agreed with the trial court's rejection of the amendment application, preventing irretrievable prejudice to the plaintiff.The defendants also proposed amendments to paragraphs 4 and 19 of the written statement, which were similarly rejected. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the defendants could not amend the written statement as suggested. The alternative pleas in paragraphs 25 and 26 remain, allowing the parties to present their contentions on the issues raised. The defendants were advised to apply for the framing of issues if desired, and the costs of the appeal were to be borne by the appellants. The record was directed to be sent back to the trial court promptly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
