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 appellant was entitled to amend the plaint schedule to include the Ambattur Estate property as an additional item for partition, and whether the application could be rejected solely on the ground of delay.
Analysis: The proposed property was admitted by the parties to be available for partition, and the first respondent had already treated it as a divisible asset in a separate suit. The amendment did not alter the nature of the partition action, did not introduce any contentious issue requiring fresh adjudication, and would facilitate complete resolution of the dispute. The delay was explained by the pendency of proceedings relating to the Will and by the stage at which the objection to the property became relevant. In such circumstances, a liberal approach to amendment was required, and refusal would only prolong or multiply litigation.
Conclusion: The application for amendment ought to have been allowed, and rejection solely on the ground of delay was unsustainable. The decision is in favour of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: An amendment necessary for complete adjudication and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings should ordinarily be allowed where it does not fundamentally change the case or cause irremediable prejudice, and mere delay is not a sufficient ground for refusal.