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 Dismissed: Proposed Pleading Amendment Introduces New Case, Causes Prejudice, and Alters Original Cause of Action.</h1> <h3>Revajeetu Builders and Developers Versus Narayanaswamy and Sons and Ors.</h3> Revajeetu Builders and Developers Versus Narayanaswamy and Sons and Ors. - (2009) 10SCC 84 Issues Involved:1. Amendment of Pleadings2. Withdrawal of Admissions3. Prejudice to the Respondents4. Legal Principles and Precedents on AmendmentsDetailed Analysis:1. Amendment of Pleadings:The appellant sought to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC after the repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The appellant aimed to add new paragraphs and prayers, including declaring the respondents as trespassers and seeking possession of the property. The trial court allowed this amendment, but the High Court of Karnataka overturned this decision, stating that the amendment introduced a new case and would adversely affect the respondents' rights. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that amendments should not change the entire character of the suit or introduce a new cause of action.2. Withdrawal of Admissions:The respondents argued that the appellant's amendment sought to withdraw admissions made in the original plaint, particularly regarding the invalidity of the sale deed. The High Court agreed, noting that amendments should not allow a party to withdraw admissions that would prejudice the other side. The Supreme Court supported this view, referencing several precedents where courts have held that admissions in pleadings cannot be retracted through amendments.3. Prejudice to the Respondents:The respondents contended that the amendment would prejudice their rights and change the original cause of action. The High Court found that allowing the amendment would indeed cause prejudice, as it would alter the nature of the suit and the admissions made. The Supreme Court reiterated that amendments should not cause injustice or prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs, and in this case, the amendment would significantly disadvantage the respondents.4. Legal Principles and Precedents on Amendments:The Supreme Court referenced several key judgments to outline the principles governing amendments of pleadings. These include:- Usha Balashaheb Swami v. Kiran Appaso Swami: Amendments should not withdraw admissions or alter the cause of action.- Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal: Admissions in the pleadings cannot be retracted through amendments.- Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetley: Amendments should not be allowed if they seek to withdraw admissions.- Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram & Co.: Amendments should not introduce an entirely different case or prejudice the other party.The Court also discussed the historical context and legislative intent behind Order VI Rule 17, emphasizing that amendments should be allowed to determine the real questions in controversy but should not be used to delay proceedings or change the nature of the suit.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to reject the amendment. The Court imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the appellant for compelling the respondents to oppose the amendment application in different courts. The judgment underscored that amendments must be bona fide, necessary for adjudication, and should not prejudice the other party or change the suit's character.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
