Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.75 seconds)
Nur Islam Mondal vs Kasem Ali Mondal & Ors on 8 February, 2012 cites

Ragu Thilak D. John vs S.Rayappan & Others on 23 January, 2001

37. It is also settled law that while considering the prayer for amendment, the Court cannot consider the point of limitation. An objection regarding the bar of limitation of the plaintiffs' claim may be a consideration in the suit provided the amendment is allowed. Such principle was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghu Thilak D. Jhon Vs. S. Rayappan & Ors., reported in 2001(2) SCC 472."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 320 - Full Document

Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan vs Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (D) & Ors on 9 July, 2007

In the decision reported in AIR 2007 SC 2577 (Ramachandra Sekharam Mahajan Vs. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (D) & Ors.) it appears that the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of joint title. The question involved was whether the plaintiff had established his title to the suit property. The plaintiff belatedly attempted to amend the plaint to make his claim more precise so as to enable the Court to adjudicate upon it more satisfactorily. The Trial Court did not allow the amendment. The Appellate Court also upheld the order of the Trial Court. In the said reported decision, the plaintiff by way of amendment tried to "pinpoint the disputed property with better particulars". The plaintiff argued that by the amendment that they wanted to supply better particulars which, according to them, were needed for proper adjudication of the matters in controversy. It appears that the ground for refusal to allow amendment was the belated attempts made by the plaintiff to amend the plaint which previously was once amended. The reason for setting aside the order of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are in paragraphs 10,11 and 12 of the said report which are reproduced hereinbelow:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 177 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Heeralal vs Kalyan Mal & Ors on 19 November, 1997

32. It is equally settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal that admission made by a party either in their pleadings, cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by way of amendment. But explaining of admission by a party is not permissible. Withdrawal of admission means deletion of statement relating to such admission and/or substitution of one set of fact in the place of the facts already stated in the pleadings or in the evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 164 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Nrisingh Prosad Paul vs Steel Products Ltd. on 3 September, 1951

The purpose of amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be "for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties", it would mean determination on the merits of the real point at issue and for the purpose, such amendment would be necessary. It has been held that Nrisangha Prasad Paul Vs. Steel Products Ltd. reported in AIR 1953 Cal 15 that an immaterial and useless amendment should not be permitted by the Court. In my view, the amendment sought to be introduced, is immaterial at this stage.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Sk. Abul Kalam And Ors. vs Umapada Maity And Ors. on 31 August, 2007

In so far as the case of Sk. Abul Kalam (supra) is concerned it cannot be doubted that application for amendment may be allowed even after the conclusion of recording of evidence and at the stage of hearing of the argument if such amendment is necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute in the suit. Although the stage at which it is attempted to be made is a factor to be taken into consideration but the Court would always lean in favour of amendment, if the same is necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute in the suit filed by the plaintiff.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - J Bhattacharya - Full Document
1