Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.38 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
L. J. Leach And Company Ltd vs Jardine Skinner And Co on 22 January, 1957
394. 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 and L.J. Leach and Company
Limited and another v. Jardine Skinner and Company,
[1957] SCR 438.
Kisandas Rupchand And Ors. vs Rachappa Vithoba Shilvant And Ors. on 2 July, 1909
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, (1884)
26 Ch.D. 700) 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
13 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 21-05-2018 18:19:22 :::
Civil Revision No.8609 of 2017 -14-
substance to be already in the pleading sought to be
amended in Kishandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba,
(1909) ILR 33 Bom.
Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil And Others on 7 February, 1957
644 approved in Pirgonda Hongonda
Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, [1957] SCR 595.
A. K. Gupta And Sons vs Damodar Valley Corporation on 10 September, 1965
Thus, in view of the discussion made hereinabove and in the
light of law laid down by the Apex Court in B.K.N. Pillai's case (supra);
Ganesh Trading Co vs Moji Ram on 25 January, 1978
14 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 21-05-2018 18:19:22 :::
Civil Revision No.8609 of 2017 -15-
In M/s. Ganesh Trading Company v. Moji Ram, [1978] 2
SCC 91 it was held:
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ganga Bai vs Vijay Kumar & Ors on 9 April, 1974
Again in Smt.Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar & Ors., [1974] 2
SCC 393 this Court held:
Charan Das vs Amir Khan on 6 July, 1920
394. 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 and L.J. Leach and Company
Limited and another v. Jardine Skinner and Company,
[1957] SCR 438.
1