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>Jurisdiction upheld for amending plaint during suit stay under Section 10 CPC</h1> <h3>Smt. Kulsumum Nisan Versus Mohammad Farooq And Ors.</h3> Smt. Kulsumum Nisan Versus Mohammad Farooq And Ors. - AIR 1969 All 479 Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Judge to allow an application for amendment during the stay of the suit under Section 10 CPC.2. Interpretation of Section 10 CPC and its impact on the trial proceedings.3. Comparison with relevant case laws regarding the power to allow amendments during legal proceedings.Analysis:Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Civil JudgeThe case involved an application in revision challenging the order of the Additional Civil Judge allowing the plaintiff's application for amending the plaint by adding a new defendant while the suit was stayed under Section 10 CPC. The contention was that the Civil Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain such an amendment application during the stay. However, the Civil Judge allowed the amendment, leading to the revision application.Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 10 CPCThe key argument revolved around the interpretation of Section 10 CPC, which prohibits the trial of a suit when the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previous instituted suit between the same parties. It was argued that any order passed after the stay of the suit, including an amendment to implead a party, would be without jurisdiction. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that Section 10 CPC aims to prevent simultaneous trials of similar issues between parties and that an amendment to add a defendant does not impact the trial proceedings.Issue 3: Comparison with Relevant Case LawsThe judgment referred to the case of Fakir Singh v. Secretary of State and Harish Chandra Bajpai v. Triloki Singh to draw parallels and distinctions. In Fakir Singh's case, it was held that fixing dates for the hearing of a suit after a stay order under Section 10 CPC was without jurisdiction. Similarly, in Harish Chandra Bajpai's case, the Supreme Court interpreted the power to allow amendments in a different legal context. However, the court concluded that these cases were not directly applicable to the present situation as the nature of the amendments and the context of the legal provisions differed.In conclusion, the court held that the amendment to implead a party does not determine the rights or liabilities of the parties or relate to the trial of the suit. Therefore, the order of the Civil Judge allowing the amendment was within the court's jurisdiction. The revision application was dismissed, affirming the validity of the amendment and the court's decision in the matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
