Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.15 seconds)Soma Devi vs Guin Devi And Ors. on 13 March, 2003
But when the amendment does not show to have put the appellants in inconvenient and embarrassing position, such delay can be condoned/compensated by money value. The two judgments as cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant are not much relevant in the present circumstances of the case. AIR 1971 SC 2177 relates to amendment being sought in the plaint regarding some other matter, when remand order was restricted to a fresh decision on the ground of resjudicata and hence the Apex Court had rejected such amendment, but in the present case I have already stated that remand order was an open one for fresh , disposal regarding all issues and not a particular-issue or a particular point, hence that judgment has got no relevance in the present case. Other judgment i.e. Suma Devi v. Gain Devi AIR 2003 HP 158, related to negligence/due diligence as contemplated under Order 18 Rule 17-A for the purpose of additional evidence. The principle relating to additional evidence is totally different than provision of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC relating to amendment of pleadings. Regarding due diligence I have already stated that the delay although not being explained from the side of the respondent, the same can be compensated by money value.
1