Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Section 61 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Ganesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978
"5. After referring to the judgments in Charan Das v. Amir Khan, AIR 1921
PC 50, L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd v. Jardine Skinner & Co., AIR 1957 SC 357,
Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, (1974) 2 SCC 393, Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji
Ram, (1978) 2 SCC 91 and various other authorities, this court in B.K.
Narayana Pillai v. Parameshwaran Pilla, (2000) 1 SCC 712 held: (SCC
p.715, para 3)
"3. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either
party to alter or amend his pleadings 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 courts while deciding such
prayers should not adopt a hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach
should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be
compensated with the 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."
Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs National Building Material Supply, ... on 17 March, 1969
2. Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon,
1969 (1) SCC 869 It was held that a party cannot be refused just relief merely because
of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure.
K.K. Modi vs K.N. Modi & Ors on 4 February, 1998
2. Lord Simonds, Sir John Beaumont and Sir Lionel Leach, AIR (37) 1950 PC 68,
The Privy Council, in the above case, has observed as under:-
Ragu Thilak D. John vs S.Rayappan & Others on 23 January, 2001
3. Ragu Thilak D. John vs. S. Rayappan and Others (2001) 2 SCC 472
Sethi, J. speaking for the Bench has observed that the amendment sought
would change the nature of the suit originally filed was not a reason for refusing
application for amendment and that the dominant purpose of Order VI Rule 17 was to
minimise litigation and that the plea that the relief sought for by way of amendment was
barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case. This Court further
observed in para 5 as under:
Sampath Kumar vs Ayyakannu And Anr on 13 September, 2002
Since the Court has entered into a discussion into the correctness or falsity of
the case in the amendment, we have no other option but to interfere with the order
passed by the High Court. Since it is settled law that the merits of the amendment
sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of
allowing prayer for amendment, the order passed by the High Court is not sustainable
in law as observed by this Court in Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and Another,
(2002) 7 SCC 559.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Charan Das vs Amir Khan on 6 July, 1920
"5. After referring to the judgments in Charan Das v. Amir Khan, AIR 1921
PC 50, L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd v. Jardine Skinner & Co., AIR 1957 SC 357,
Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, (1974) 2 SCC 393, Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji
Ram, (1978) 2 SCC 91 and various other authorities, this court in B.K.
Narayana Pillai v. Parameshwaran Pilla, (2000) 1 SCC 712 held: (SCC
p.715, para 3)
"3. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to allow either
party to alter or amend his pleadings 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 courts while deciding such
prayers should not adopt a hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach
should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be
compensated with the 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."