Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952
Harish Chandra Bajpai vs Triloki Singh on 21 December, 1956
Further, in Harish Chandra Bajpai v. Triloki Singh, AIR 1957 SC
454, it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the power to
WP(C) No.32975 of 2022 Page 4 of 9
amend cannot be exercised so as to permit new grounds of charges to
be raised or to alter the character of the suit.
Aniglase Yohannan vs Ramlatha And Ors on 23 September, 2005
8. In the instant case, upon perusal of record, it is observed that the
proposed amendments are not to the effect of bringing new facts but
the same are elaborating the pleadings already taken in the plaint
(election petition). So, the amendments sought for do neither bring any
new fact nor do it affect the nature and character of the case, but only
elaborates the pleadings. It is no more res integra that the prayer to
amend cannot be refused unless it changes the nature and character of
the suit, subject to filing of the same at appropriate stage (see Aniglase
Yohannan vs. Ramlatha and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 534,
Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and Another vs. Swami
Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Others, (2006) 12 SCC 1, Chander Kanta
Bansal vs. Rajinder Singh Anand, (2008) 5 SCC 117, Rajkumar
Guraward (dead) through LRS.
Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr vs Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors on 8 December, 2006
8. In the instant case, upon perusal of record, it is observed that the
proposed amendments are not to the effect of bringing new facts but
the same are elaborating the pleadings already taken in the plaint
(election petition). So, the amendments sought for do neither bring any
new fact nor do it affect the nature and character of the case, but only
elaborates the pleadings. It is no more res integra that the prayer to
amend cannot be refused unless it changes the nature and character of
the suit, subject to filing of the same at appropriate stage (see Aniglase
Yohannan vs. Ramlatha and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 534,
Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and Another vs. Swami
Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Others, (2006) 12 SCC 1, Chander Kanta
Bansal vs. Rajinder Singh Anand, (2008) 5 SCC 117, Rajkumar
Guraward (dead) through LRS.
Chander Kanta Bansal vs Rajinder Singh Anand on 11 March, 2008
8. In the instant case, upon perusal of record, it is observed that the
proposed amendments are not to the effect of bringing new facts but
the same are elaborating the pleadings already taken in the plaint
(election petition). So, the amendments sought for do neither bring any
new fact nor do it affect the nature and character of the case, but only
elaborates the pleadings. It is no more res integra that the prayer to
amend cannot be refused unless it changes the nature and character of
the suit, subject to filing of the same at appropriate stage (see Aniglase
Yohannan vs. Ramlatha and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 534,
Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and Another vs. Swami
Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Others, (2006) 12 SCC 1, Chander Kanta
Bansal vs. Rajinder Singh Anand, (2008) 5 SCC 117, Rajkumar
Guraward (dead) through LRS.
Vidyabai & Ors vs Padmalatha & Anr on 12 December, 2008
Man Kaur(Dead)By Lrs vs Hartar Singh Sangha on 5 October, 2010
J.Samuel & Ors vs Gattu Mhesh & Ors on 16 January, 2012
9. Mr. Mohapatra further contends that there was lack of due
diligence on the part of the election petitioner in bringing such facts in
the election petition and therefore, the proposed amendment should be
rejected and in support of his submission he relies on a decision in J.
Samuel and Others v. Gattu Mahesh and Others, (2012) 2 SCC 300,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held as follows:-