Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (1.09 seconds)Andhra Bank vs Abn Amro Bank N.V. And Ors on 10 July, 2007
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the amendment the applicant
has raised the plea that the construction of the premises in dispute was made prior to 1972
and, therefore, Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable and, therefore, the S.C.C. Suit filed was
not maintainable. This plea is necessary to adjudicate the issue and, therefore, ought to
have been allowed. He submitted that the apex Court in the case of Andhra Bank v.
ABN Amro Bank N.V. and Ors. reported in 2007 (3) ARC 410 has held that the delay is
no ground for refusing the prayer of amendment. He further submitted that defendant no. 2
had earlier moved the application raising the plea that during pendency of the proceeding,
2
on the intervention of the neighbours, the dispute has been settled between the parties
and, according to which, the plaintiff-landlord has received the rent in cash upto
December, 2007 and agreed to withdraw the suit and when he refused to withdraw the suit
a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited on 12.2.2008 in the court. It was pleaded that since
the above facts have come into existence after filing of the written statement, such
amendment was liable to be allowed. However, the amendment has been rejected on the
ground that it has been moved after nine months from the date of the close of the
evidence.
Gautam Sarup vs Leela Jetly And Ors on 7 March, 2008
The trial court has recorded categorical finding that by the amendment the
defendants intended to resile with the admission made in the written statement, which is
not permissible in law. The apex Court in the case of Gautam Sarup (supra) has held that
under Order 6 Rule 17 the party cannot be permitted to resile from the admissions made in
the earlier written statement by moving amendment application.
1