https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198345 The court held that allowing an amendment of the plaint does not constitute a judgment under clause (15), Letters Patent, and therefore, an appeal does not lie. It was determined that the court has the jurisdiction to permit amendments even when the original plaint lacks a cause of action, as the power under O. 6, R. 17 is not restricted by O. 7, R. 11. The court emphasized that granting leave to amend is a matter of proper or improper exercise of discretion, and the decision is subject to scrutiny. The appeal was dismissed, including cross-objections on costs, with a concurring opinion supporting the decision. en-us Wed, 08 Mar 1950 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jan 2018 17:09:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198345 The court held that allowing an amendment of the plaint does not constitute a judgment under clause (15), Letters Patent, and therefore, an appeal does not lie. It was determined that the court has the jurisdiction to permit amendments even when the original plaint lacks a cause of action, as the power under O. 6, R. 17 is not restricted by O. 7, R. 11. The court emphasized that granting leave to amend is a matter of proper or improper exercise of discretion, and the decision is subject to scrutiny. The appeal was dismissed, including cross-objections on costs, with a concurring opinion supporting the decision. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 Mar 1950 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198345