Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.57 seconds)A. K. Gupta And Sons vs Damodar Valley Corporation on 10 September, 1965
"4. This Court in A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar
Valley Corpn. [AIR 1967 SC 96 : (1966) 1 SCR 796]
held:
Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil And Others on 7 February, 1957
26 Ch. 700 : 53 LJ Ch 891 : 51 LT 729]) and
secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on
the statute of limitation when what is sought to be
brought in by the amendment can be said in substance
to be already in the pleading sought to be amended
(Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant
[ILR (1909) 33 Bom 644 : 11 Bom LR 1042] approved
in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda
Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363 : 1957 SCR 595]).
Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi vs Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar on 13 December, 1989
(Also see Gajanan Jaikishan
Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar [(1990) 1 SCC
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL CS(OS) 166/2023 Page 15 of 26
SINGH
Signing Date:22.01.2026
17:47:50
166].)"
P.A.Jayalakshmi vs H.Saradha & Ors on 21 July, 2009
In the case of P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha
reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525, the above observations
were reiterated by this Court and in the light of the
same, this Court in para 9 held as under:
B.K-Narayana Pillai vs Pararneswaran Pillai & Anr on 13 December, 1999
In B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai
reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712, this Court referred to
the following passage from A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd.
v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967
SC 96 wherein, it was held as follows:--
Charan Das vs Amir Khan on 6 July, 1920
But it is also well
recognised that where the amendment does not
constitute the addition of a new cause of action or
raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a
different or additional approach to the same facts, the
amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the
statutory period of limitation : See Charan Das v. Amir
Khan [AIR 1921 PC 50 : ILR 48 Cal 110] and L.J.
Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. [AIR
1957 SC 357 : 1957 SCR 438]
The principal reasons that have led to the rule last
mentioned are, first, that the object of courts and rules
of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and
not to punish them for their mistakes (Cropper v. Smith
[[L.R.]
L. J. Leach And Company Ltd vs Jardine Skinner And Co on 22 January, 1957
But it is also well
recognised that where the amendment does not
constitute the addition of a new cause of action or
raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a
different or additional approach to the same facts, the
amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the
statutory period of limitation : See Charan Das v. Amir
Khan [AIR 1921 PC 50 : ILR 48 Cal 110] and L.J.
Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. [AIR
1957 SC 357 : 1957 SCR 438]
The principal reasons that have led to the rule last
mentioned are, first, that the object of courts and rules
of procedure is to decide the rights of the parties and
not to punish them for their mistakes (Cropper v. Smith
[[L.R.]
Kisandas Rupchand And Ors. vs Rachappa Vithoba Shilvant And Ors. on 2 July, 1909
26 Ch. 700 : 53 LJ Ch 891 : 51 LT 729]) and
secondly, that a party is strictly not entitled to rely on
the statute of limitation when what is sought to be
brought in by the amendment can be said in substance
to be already in the pleading sought to be amended
(Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant
[ILR (1909) 33 Bom 644 : 11 Bom LR 1042] approved
in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda
Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363 : 1957 SCR 595]).
Ganga Bai vs Vijay Kumar & Ors on 9 April, 1974
Again in Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar [(1974) 2 SCC
393] this Court held : (SCC p. 399, para 22)
"The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly
wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised
in the interest of justice, the law of limitation
notwithstanding. But the exercise of such far-reaching
discretionary powers is governed by judicial
considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought
to be the care and circumspection on the part of the
court."