https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358936 The plaint disclosed an existing cause of action through averments that the last payment was received on 30/10/2013, an outstanding balance remained due, and interest was claimed. On that basis, the suit filed on 25/10/2016 did not, on the face of the plaint, reveal a bar of limitation or warrant rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The proposed amendment merely added further particulars about a Company Petition and continuing cause of action, and no accrued right of the defendant was taken away because the trial court had not relied on the amended paragraph while refusing rejection of the plaint. The challenge to amendment and rejection failed. en-us Mon, 02 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358936 The plaint disclosed an existing cause of action through averments that the last payment was received on 30/10/2013, an outstanding balance remained due, and interest was claimed. On that basis, the suit filed on 25/10/2016 did not, on the face of the plaint, reveal a bar of limitation or warrant rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The proposed amendment merely added further particulars about a Company Petition and continuing cause of action, and no accrued right of the defendant was taken away because the trial court had not relied on the amended paragraph while refusing rejection of the plaint. The challenge to amendment and rejection failed. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 02 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358936