Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 96 (1.03 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 306 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 34 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 120 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Archie Comic Publications Inc vs Purple Creations Pvt Ltd. And Ors. on 10 September, 2010
68. That in Rajkumar Gurwara (Dead) Thr. LRs v. M/s S.K.
Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2008 SC 2303, it was laid down that
amendment of pleadings is permissible before commencement of trial.
It is submitted that the judgment relied upon by the defendant Nos. 2A
and 2B in Archie Comic Publications Inc. v. Purple Creations
Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. (2010) 172 DLT 234 (DB) deals with the proposition
of law that if the plaint does not disclose jurisdictional facts, it cannot
be amended which is not relevant in the context of the present facts
and circumstances. In paragraph 23 of the said judgment, it has been
observed that "in case of unclear or ambiguous pleadings, the same
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DHARMENDER SINGH CS (OS) 203/2022 Page 31 of 81
Signing Date:10.04.2023
16:41:07
2023:DHC:2395
may be allowed to be amended to clarify the already pleaded facts till
the same does not give rise to addition of a new cause of action or
pleading or new facts". It is his submission that in the present case, the
plaintiff had mentioned about the invalidity of the will in paragraph 4
(xviii) of the original plaint and in para 4 (xviii-A) of the amended
plaint. Further, the pleading w.r.t. cause of action in the original is at
paragraph 5, which was clarified in para 4-A of the amended plaint.
Therefore, the plaintiff has only clarified the foundational facts in the
amended suit.
Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan vs Thekittil Gopalankutty Nair on 29 November, 1985
In paragraph 11, reference has been made by the Supreme
Court to its own judgment in the case of Melepurath Sankunni v.
Thekittil Gopalankutty Nair, AIR 1986 SC 411, wherein the Supreme
Court by giving reference to Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act,
1925, has stated, though the said section specifically speak of rights of
executors and administrators to continue the proceedings instituted by
the deceased plaintiff but on principle, the same position must
necessarily prevail in the case of Legal Representatives, for such Legal
Representatives cannot in law be in better or worse position than that
of executors and administrators and as such what applies to executors
and administrators will apply to other Legal Representatives also.