Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.52 seconds)
Praveen Kumar Singh vs Geeta Rani @ Geeta Khari & Ors on 20 January, 2026 cites

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]).
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 387 - S K Das - Full Document

Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad on 14 March, 2023

17. The law relating to amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARIOM SINGH KIRMOLIYA CS(OS) 265/2023 Page 11 of 20 Signing Date:30.01.2026 18:29:53 of the CPC has been crystallized by the Apex Court in several cases. It is settled law that courts should take a liberal view in allowing amendment of pleadings. The Apex Court in Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad & Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 256, has held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 7 - A S Bopanna - Full Document

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.]
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 217 - Full Document

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.]
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 348 - Full Document
1   2 Next