Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.44 seconds)Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs National Building Material Supply, ... on 17 March, 1969
In Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, , it has been observed by the Supreme Court as follows:
Panchdeo Narain Srivastava vs Km. Jyoti Sahay And Anr. on 18 February, 1983
In Panchdeo Narain Srivastava v. Smt. Jyoti Sahay, , the Supreme Court allowed the amendment on the ground that the trial Judge in granting the amendment was satisfied that in order to effectively adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties, the amendment of the pleading was
necessary.
Haridas Aildas Thadani And Ors. vs Godrej Rustom Kermani on 16 November, 1981
14. Keeping in view the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we may now examine whether the learned Assistant District judge was justified in allowing the amendment. The learned Assistant District Judge has not, however, taken into his consideration the conduct of the plaintiff in making out a case in his counter objection and a completely different case in the application for amendment in regard to the price of the disputed plot. Where, on account of negligence, laches or inadvertence, there has been an omission to plead a case in the plaint, the Court will generally allow amendment, provided it is not mala fide and does not cause any prejudice to the defendant. But here the plaintiff sought to make out different cases at two different stages, in the written statement, the defendant has specifically alleged that the price of land was agreed to be at the rate of Rs. 17,300/- per cottah. The plaintiff could have prayed for an amendment within a reasonable time of the filing of the written statement. He, however, did not make any application for amendment. On the other hand, in his counter objection supported by an affidavit, he explained his writing under his signature containing the statement about the price of the disputed plot at the rate of Rs. 17,300/- per cottah, as having been done on the representation of the defendant's husband. In the amendment petition, the plaintiff comes out with a different story that the rate of Rs. 17,300/- per cottah was agreed to be the price of the front land, provided there was immediate sale. In our opinion, when the plaintiff comes with different cases the Court should not allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint for incorporating one of such cases therein.
1