TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the plaint should be amended so that the real issue between the parties could be decided; (ii) Whether the revisional or supervisory jurisdiction could be exercised to interfere with the refusal to grant amendment.
Issue (i): Whether the plaint should be amended so that the real issue between the parties could be decided.
Analysis: The claim in the plaint, read as a whole, indicated that the plaintiff asserted exclusive possession over a defined six annas share, which supported the inference that the share had been demarcated. An amendment was needed to enable the Court to determine the actual controversy, namely whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific portions of the plots claimed by exclusive cultivation. Refusal of amendment could not be justified merely because the Court thought the amended case might ultimately fail on evidence.
Conclusion: The amendment ought to have been allowed in favour of the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the revisional or supervisory jurisdiction could be exercised to interfere with the refusal to grant amendment.
Analysis: A discretionary order refusing amendment is not immune from interference where the discretion has been improperly exercised. The earlier binding view recognised that interference could be made in a proper case under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and under the then supervisory power preserved by section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1919. On that reasoning, the Court held that it had power to interfere with the refusal and to correct the erroneous exercise of discretion.
Conclusion: Interference was competent and the refusal to amend could be set aside in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The order refusing amendment was set aside, the plaint was directed to be amended, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings after allowing the defendants to amend their written statements.
Ratio Decidendi: A refusal to amend pleadings may be interfered with in revision or under supervisory power where the amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy and the discretion has been improperly exercised.
TaxTMI 
