Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors on 22 March, 2006
In Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & others Vs. K.K.Modi & others 2006
(4) SCC 385, the Apex Court held that it was mandatory for the Court to go to the
real question of controversy between the parties, in the larger interest of justice
and procedural obstacles should not come in the way of dispensation of justice.
In such circumstances, if the landlord can file a second petition for eviction on
the same ground of unfit and unsafe, which remedy, admittedly, is available to
him, if the pleadings are allowed to be amended, no prejudice can be caused to
the petitioner-tenant, who has already been granted costs of `2000/- and, as such,
has been duly compensated. Even otherwise, he will not be prejudiced in any
manner since the Rent Controller has to decide the issue on merits. It is also
settled principle that the Courts are not to go into the merits of the case at the
initial stage of allowing the amendment, which is best left to be decided at the
SAILESH RANJAN
2014.12.16 10:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CR No.8371 of 2014 -4-
final time.
Abdul Rehman & Anr vs Mohd.Ruldu & Ors on 27 September, 2012
Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the ground
which is now sought to be amended was in the knowledge of the landlord and he
has pointed out that the Local Commissioner was appointed vide order dated
30.08.2010 who submitted his report that the landlord has sought to incorporate
as a new ground of amendment. It is submitted that once the evidence stood
closed and the trial was at the fag end, the amendment should not have been
allowed. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the judgment of the Apex
Court in Abdul Rehman's case (supra) was not applicable since the due
diligence aspect was missing.
Section 15 in East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr vs Rajendra Shankar Patil on 23 July, 2010
After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion
that there is no merit in the present revision petition. Firstly, the present revision
petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and
therefore, is not maintainable. The Apex Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty &
another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil 2010 (8) SCC 329 held that once there is an
alternative remedy under the statute, then Article 227 cannot be invoked on the
asking especially when there was provision of filing revision under Section 15 of
the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, before the competent Court.
In such circumstances, the present revision petition itself is not maintainable.
The relevant paras read as under:
1