Just a moment...
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 a plaint originally confined to a prayer for injunction could be amended after service of notice under Section 123 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 so as to add reliefs challenging the licence already issued and whether a fresh suit was necessary.
Analysis: Section 123 required notice before instituting a suit against a Panchayat or its executive authority in respect of claims other than a suit for injunction. The original suit, being one for injunction, did not attract the notice requirement. When the plaintiff later sought to add declaratory and consequential reliefs after issuing the statutory notice and waiting for the prescribed period, the procedural object of the provision stood satisfied. The notice requirement was intended to secure an opportunity for the authority to consider the claim and avoid unnecessary litigation, and permitting amendment after compliance would not defeat that object. The view that the amendment changed the nature of the suit or that a fresh suit alone was maintainable was rejected.
Conclusion: The amendment application was maintainable after compliance with the statutory notice requirement, and the refusal to permit amendment was erroneous.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a suit originally maintainable without notice is later sought to be amended to add reliefs requiring notice, the amendment may be allowed if the statutory notice is served and the prescribed waiting period has expired before the amendment is pursued.