https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200779 An amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 should be considered before an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) where the amendment was sought first. The court reasoned that if the plaint were rejected at the threshold, the plaintiff would not be barred from filing a fresh plaint on the same cause of action, including the proposed amendment, so deciding amendment first would serve a useful purpose and would not amount to advancing the trial. The trial court's refusal to consider the amendment application first was therefore unsustainable, and the amendment request had to be decided on its own merits. en-us Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Apr 2018 05:52:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200779 An amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 should be considered before an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) where the amendment was sought first. The court reasoned that if the plaint were rejected at the threshold, the plaintiff would not be barred from filing a fresh plaint on the same cause of action, including the proposed amendment, so deciding amendment first would serve a useful purpose and would not amount to advancing the trial. The trial court's refusal to consider the amendment application first was therefore unsustainable, and the amendment request had to be decided on its own merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200779