Madras High Court
Sri Rajah Bommadevara Satyanarayana ... vs Sankarahanapalli Venkata Tirumala ... on 21 November, 1924
Equivalent citations: (1925)48MLJ489, AIR 1925 MADRAS 794
JUDGMENT Krishnan, J.
1. It is argued that the Lower Court acted without jurisdiction in allowing the amendment allowed by it. I think the amendment is quite unobjectionable and falls clearly within the scope of Rule 17, Order 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. The observations in the case cited in Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung (1921) ILR 48 Cal. 832 at 835 (PC) have to be read with the facts of that case. The amendment allowed here does not change the nature of the suit at all. The words of Rule 17 give wide powers of amendment and we have the authority of the Privy Council itself in Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung (1921) ILR 48 Cal. 832 at 835 (PC) cited for holding "that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised." The petition fails and is dismissed with costs.