Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)Ma Shwe Mya vs Maung Mo Hnaung on 26 January, 1921
5. Mr. Ranjan Deb, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the petitioner cited various judgments in support of his case. Firstly, he cited AIR 1922 PC 249 (Mashwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnung) and contended that all rules of Courts are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice.
Nanda Lal Agrani vs Jogendra Chandra Datta on 18 September, 1923
He further cited 28 CWN 403 (Nandi Lal Agrani v. Jogendra Chandra Dutta) particularly para 410 left hand side to show that factually in such case misdescription of the property under the Schedule was there but even the Court allowed the amendment.
Dondapati Narayana Reddy vs Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy & Ors on 29 August, 2001
Similarly, in (Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy & Ors. with Duggireddy Venkattanarayana Reddy v. Dondapati Narayana Reddy & Ors.) I find the Supreme Court held that the amendment should generally, be allowed unless it is shown that permitting the mandment would be unjust and results in prejudice against the opposite side which cannot be compensated by cost or would deprive him of a right which has accrued to him by the lapse of time.
Section 152 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 153 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
K. Karuppanna Mudaliar vs Kuttianna Mudaliar on 14 March, 1975
He further cited (K. Kuruppanna Mudaliar v. Kuttianna Mudaliar) to establish that the predominant interest of the Court should be to render justice and allow amendments for such purposes in order to determine the real question of controversy between the parties.
Karam Singh vs Charan Singh And Anr. on 16 July, 1971
He also cited AIR 1972 P&H 295 (Karam Singh v. Charan Singh and another) to show that an amendment rectifying unitentional and a mere clerical error in mis-description in plaint could be allowed.
1