Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which sought to delete earlier admissions and introduce a different basis for relief, was permissible.
Analysis: Amendments to pleadings are generally to be allowed when they are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy and when they do not cause irreparable prejudice to the other side. However, a plaint amendment stands on a stricter footing than an amendment of a written statement. An amendment that withdraws admissions, substitutes a new case, or changes the fundamental nature and character of the suit is ordinarily impermissible, especially where the opposite party has acquired accrued rights or where the amendment would defeat a defence such as limitation. The governing principles emphasise judicial discretion, bona fides, avoidance of prejudice, and whether the amendment is imperative for effective adjudication.
Conclusion: The amendment was not permissible, as it would have altered the character of the suit and withdrawn admissions to the prejudice of the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: A plaint amendment cannot be allowed if it introduces a new cause of action, changes the nature of the suit, or withdraws admissions in a manner that prejudices the opposite party beyond compensation by costs.