Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 99 views

    Amendment of Pleading

    Uploaded by

    Rvi Mahay
    This document discusses amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It provides context for the purpose and interpretation of the rule. Key points include: 1) The rule aims to enable the real issues between parties to be determined and prevent multiplicity of suits. 2) Courts should be liberal in granting amendments unless it causes serious injustice. Amendments must hear the opposing party's objections. 3) Amendments should clarify the real issues but not change the basic structure or introduce new causes of action. 4) Delay alone may not be grounds for refusal if the other side is compensated by costs; each case depends on its facts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Amendment of Pleading

    Uploaded by

    Rvi Mahay
    99 views21 pages
    This document discusses amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It provides context for the purpose and interpretation of the rule. Key points include: 1) The rule aims to enable the real issues between parties to be determined and prevent multiplicity of suits. 2) Courts should be liberal in granting amendments unless it causes serious injustice. Amendments must hear the opposing party's objections. 3) Amendments should clarify the real issues but not change the basic structure or introduce new causes of action. 4) Delay alone may not be grounds for refusal if the other side is compensated by costs; each case depends on its facts.

    Original Description:

    a

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It provides context for the purpose and interpretation of the rule. Key points include: 1) The rule aims to enable the real issues between parties to be determined and prevent multiplicity of suits. 2) Courts should be liberal in granting amendments unless it causes serious injustice. Amendments must hear the opposing party's objections. 3) Amendments should clarify the real issues but not change the basic structure or introduce new causes of action. 4) Delay alone may not be grounds for refusal if the other side is compensated by costs; each case depends on its facts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    99 views21 pages

    Amendment of Pleading

    Uploaded by

    Rvi Mahay
    This document discusses amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It provides context for the purpose and interpretation of the rule. Key points include: 1) The rule aims to enable the real issues between parties to be determined and prevent multiplicity of suits. 2) Courts should be liberal in granting amendments unless it causes serious injustice. Amendments must hear the opposing party's objections. 3) Amendments should clarify the real issues but not change the basic structure or introduce new causes of action. 4) Delay alone may not be grounds for refusal if the other side is compensated by costs; each case depends on its facts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 21

    Neeraj Sharma

    Assistant Professor
    School of law
    Introduction
     Due to illiteracy and ignorance of law, a litigant often
    omits to communicate all facts and circumstances of a
    particular case to his legal advisor.

     Further a legal advisor may not be fully aware of the


    significance of certain facts at the initial level and may
    come to know of their importance as the case proceeds
    Object of Order 6 Rule 17
     To enable the real question in issue , between the
    parties to be raised on the pleadings for the purpose of
    adjudication between the parties.

     To prevent the multiplicity of suits and shortens


    litigation.
    Reading of Rule 17 of Order 6
     The first part leaves it to the discretion of the court to
    amend or not.

     The second part makes it imperative on the court to


    make all such amendments as may be necessary.
    Important things
     The court should record reasons for allowing or not
    allowing the amendments.

     An order granting amendment without hearing the


    opposite party is not legal and valid.

     An opportunity should be given to other party to file


    an objection against a prayer for amendment
    Haridas Alidas Thadani v. Godrej
    Rustom Kermani AIR 1983
     It was held that courts should be extremely liberal in
    granting prayer of amendment of pleadings unless
    serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the
    other side.
    Considerations for grant of leave to
    amend
     To enable the real question in issue between the
    parties to be raised(‘basic test’)
     It does not cause any injury or injustice to the opposite
    party
     Even if it causes some injury to the other party, the
    same is compensated in terms of money by way of
    infliction of costs.
    Circumstances in which
    amendment may be rejected
     An amendment should not change the basic structure
    or subject-matter of the suit.
     An entirely new or inconsistent cause of action is not
    allowed through an amendment of pleadings.
     Leave to amend will be refused when the amendment
    application is not made in good faith

     The court should not adopt hyper-technical approach


    while deciding the prayers for amendment
     Technicalities of law should not be permitted to
    hamper the courts in the administration of justice
    between the parties.
    Real Controversy Test
     It is the basic test.
     It is the duty of the court to decide the real disputes
    between the parties.
     If it is , the amendment will be allowed.
     If it is not, the amendment will be refused.
     Thus , if the amendment is not necessary or is merely
    technical or useless or without any substance , it will
    be refused.
    Dalip Kaur v. Major Singh AIR 1996
     The plaintiff filed an application under O.VI , R. 17 of
    CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint.

     The application was dismissed by the trial court.


     The ground was inordinate delay
    Punjab and Haryana High Court
     HC held that the relief claimed is not barred by time
     The proposed amendment do not impact the vested
    right of the respondent
     The delay in filing the petition for amendment can be
    compensated by costs.
     High court observed that the amendment cannot be
    claimed as a matter of right and under all
    circumstances.
     The circumstances may differ from case to case
     It would depend upon the facts of each individual
    case, keeping in view the object that the courts are to
    do substantial justice and not to punish a party on
    technical grounds.
    Settled principles
     Proposed amendments should not cause prejudice to
    the other side.
     Amendment of a claim barred by time should not be
    allowed.
     No party should suffer on grounds of technicalities.
     The proposed amendment should not alter or
    substitute the cause of action
    Jai Jai Ram Manoharlal v. National
    Building Co.
     Facts of the case:
    Shri Manohar lal is karta of a joint Hindu Family and is
    carrying on its business under the name , “Ram Lal
    Manohar Lal”

    He brings the suit in the business name.


    The defendant co. raised the objection that since the
    firm is an unregistered one, it is incompetent to sue.

    Thereupon the plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint to the


    effect that he was suing in the name of the family as
    the karta or manager
     The trial court allowed the amendment

     High court reversed the order of trial court.


     It said that the suit instituted by the Joint Hindu
    family in the name of an assumed business title was a
    suit by a person who did not exist and was therefore
    the nullity.
     The plaintiff has failed to aver, that the mistake was on
    bonafide grounds.
    Supreme court
     The court observed that the plaintiff was carrying on
    business as commission agent in the name of “Jai Jai
    Ram Manohar Lal”
     The plaintiff was competent to sue in his own name as
    manager of the HUF to which the business belonged.
    SC held
     The supreme court held that the plaintiff was
    competent to sue in his own name as Karta of joint
    Hindu family to which the business belonged.

     Since the name in which the action was instituted was


    merely the misdescription of the original plaintiff, no
    question of limitation arises .

     The court granted the permission to amend the plaint


    and to rectify the name of the party
    THANK YOU

    You might also like