Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
Swami Vivekanand Shishu Mandir And Anr. vs Fehmida Begam on 6 November, 2001 cites

Badri Prasad Soni vs S. Kripal Singh on 3 May, 1980

In view of the above decisions the law laid down in Badri Prasad's case (supra) and followed in the two later decisions has to be treated correct and it must be held that the application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC for amendment is legally maintainable even at the stage when the arguments have been heard and the case has been closed for judgment. The amendment at that stage should be allowed only if it is really necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parlies and it does not work injustice to the other side. The discretion in this respect must be exercised judiciously after considering all the aspects.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

B.K.N.Pillai vs P. Pillai And Anr on 13 December, 1999

9. The latest guideline for dealing with the application for amendment in the pleadings is to be found in the decision of the Supreme Court in B.K.N. Pilliai v. P. Pillai (AIR 2000 SC 614) where it has been observed that the purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17, CPC is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 149 - Full Document

Ayyaswami Gounder And Ors vs Munnuswamy Gounder And Ors on 25 September, 1984

In case the aforesaid decision of this Court had been brought to the notice of the Bench which Dhirendra 's case (supra) the Bench would have either agreed with the said dictum laid down earlier or in case of any disagreement with the earlier view, the case would have been referred to Larger Bench as laid down by the Supreme Court in Ayyaswami Gounder v. Munnuswamy Gounder (AIR 1984 SC 1789) and Eknath v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1977 SC 1177).
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 43 - R B Misra - Full Document

Chhotelal vs Akbarali And Anr. on 1 October, 1982

8. The suit accommodation was admittedly let out originally for non-residential purpose and, therefore, the suit for eviction under the scheme of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 under Section 12 (1) (e) of the Act to meet the residential requirement of the landlord was not maintainable. The plaintiff through the proposed amendment wanted to covert the ground for eviction from clause (e) to Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. It is well settled after the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Chhotelal v. Akbarali (AIR 1983 MP 50) that there is nothing in the language of Section 12 (1) which forbids addition of a ground for eviction in a suit for eviction already instituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 (1) of the Act. Another ground for eviction can be set-up by amendment of the plaint. In the present case, the Trial Court cannot be said to have exercised its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously in allowing amendment for converting the ground of eviction from Clause (e) to Clause (f). That was in the interest of justice and that would avoid multiplicity of the suits. The opposite-party has been compensated by costs of a substantial amount.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Dhirendra vs State Bank Of India on 31 January, 1992

In case the aforesaid decision of this Court had been brought to the notice of the Bench which Dhirendra 's case (supra) the Bench would have either agreed with the said dictum laid down earlier or in case of any disagreement with the earlier view, the case would have been referred to Larger Bench as laid down by the Supreme Court in Ayyaswami Gounder v. Munnuswamy Gounder (AIR 1984 SC 1789) and Eknath v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1977 SC 1177).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1