Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 520 (1.24 seconds)
Documents citing Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil And Others on 7 February, 1957

Karuthakkan Nadar vs The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board ... on 19 January, 2001

In case of Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Ors. 1957 S.C.R. 595 : A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 363, this Court has held that the test for allowing the amendment is to find out whether the proposed amendment works any serious injustice to the other side. It is well settled that the Court should be extremely liberal in granting prayer of amendment of pleading unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. It is also clear that a revisional Court ought not to lightly interfere with a discretion exercised in allowing amendment in absence of cogent reasons or compelling circumstances.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Vettikuti Naydamma (Died) And Ors. vs Mupparaju Madhusudhana Rao And Ors. on 18 March, 1996

13. It is the duty of the Court to consider the prayer for amendment of pleadings to weigh all pros and cons of the case to ensure injustice and prejudice by irremedial character are not inflicted on the opposite party under the pretext of amending the pleadings. The revisionist Court must correct jurisdictional error to prevent gross mis-carriage of justice and material irregularity in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The ultimate test in the matter of allowing amendment of pleadings was stated in terms of "test of injustice". Present Courts duty is to prevent injustice occurring with any party, (vide Pirogonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgpnda Shidgonda) (1 supra).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sh. Giriraj vs Sh. Rishipal And Anr on 7 August, 2023

In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363] which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions : (a) of not working injustice to the other side; and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs."
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

A. K. Gupta And Sons vs Damodar Valley Corporation on 10 September, 1965

In Patil's case(1) amendment was allowed in the following circumstances. The plaintiff had obtained a decree for possession against defendant No. 2. He was obstructed during execution proceedings by defendant No. 1. His objection under O. 21. r. 97 was dismissed and therefore he filed a suit under O. 21, r. 103 for a declaration that he was entitled to recover possession of the suit properties from defendant No. 1. The contents of (1) [1957] S.C.R, 595.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 309 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

Madhuri Kumar vs Karan Kapoor on 22 January, 2024

26 Ch. 700 : 53 LJ Ch 891 : 51 LT 729]) and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended (Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant [ILR (1909) 33 Bom 644 : 11 Bom LR 1042] approved in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363 : 1957 SCR 595]).
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Lilawati Devi And Ors. vs Central Coalfields Ltd. on 9 October, 1991

The decisions of the Supreme Court in L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Jardine Skinner and Co., AIR 1957 SC 357 an in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Ors., reported in AIR 1957 SC 363 upon which reliance has been placed by Shri. N.K. Prasad are also authorities for the proposition that under certain circumstances, leave to amend the plaint can be granted even if the relief prayed for has become barred under the law of limitation.
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Paramjit Singh vs Hardaman Singh & Ors on 14 January, 2026

26 Ch. 700 : 53 LJ Ch 891 : 51 LT 729]) and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended (Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant [ILR (1909) 33 Bom 644 : 11 Bom LR 1042] approved in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363 : 1957 SCR 595]).
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

Praveen Kumar Singh vs Geeta Rani @ Geeta Khari & Ors on 20 January, 2026

26 Ch. 700 : 53 LJ Ch 891 : 51 LT 729]) and secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when what is sought to be brought in by the amendment can be said in substance to be already in the pleading sought to be amended (Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant [ILR (1909) 33 Bom 644 : 11 Bom LR 1042] approved in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363 : 1957 SCR 595]).
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

R. M. Pilla Reddy vs C. H. Lakshmankumar Alias C. H. Lohith on 19 February, 2026

This Court approved the observations of Batchelor, J., in Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant [Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant, 1909 SCC -8- NC: 2026:KHC:10331 WP No. 31618 of 2019 HC-KAR OnLine Bom 84 : ILR (1909) 33 Bom 644] , when he laid down the principles thus : (Pirgonda Hongonda Patil case [Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 65 : 1957 SCR 595 : AIR 1957 SC 363] ) "10. ... All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. ... but I refrain from citing further authorities, as, in my opinion, they all lay down precisely the same doctrine. That doctrine, as I understand it, is that amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. It is merely a particular case of this general rule that where a plaintiff seeks to amend by setting up a fresh claim in respect of a cause of action which since the institution of the suit had become barred by limitation, the amendment must be refused; to allow it would be to cause the defendant an injury which could not be compensated in costs by depriving him of a good defence to the claim. The ultimate test therefore still remains the same : can the amendment be allowed without injustice to the other side, or can it not?' "
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next