Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Gurdial Singh & Ors vs Raj Kumar Aneja & Ors on 4 February, 2002
6. Having heard the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that this revision petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is true that the defendant-respondents have admitted the case of the plaintiff-petitioner but after the filing of the written statement on 13.6.1990; an application was filed within three months explaining in which circumstances the admissions were made. The Civil Judge being conscious of the fact that admissions were made, framed an issue, recorded the evidence and reached a finding that admissions made were erroneous. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was admission of such a kind which remained unexplained. It is well settled that erroneous admissions could be validly explained and on such basis amendments could always be allowed to be incorporated. This proposition has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Estra/la Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001)8 S.C.C. 97 and Gurdial Singh v. Raj Kumar Aneja, (2002-1)130 P.L.R. 835 (S.C.). It is further clear that even if the amendment is declined by allowing the present revision petition, the suit may not necessarily be disposed of because there is no obligation on the trial Court that on the presentation of a plaint and on admission of averments therein, the Court must pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner because it has to record its satisfaction. The Court can always take the view and direct the plaintiff-petitioner to lead evidence to prove his/her case.
K. K. Chari vs R. M. Seshadri on 16 March, 1973
This proposition has been laid down by the Supreme Court in K.K. Chart v. R.M. Seshadri, (1973)1 S.C.C. 761. Thus there is no obligation on the Court that on the filing of the written statement in which averments made in the plaint has been admitted, the suit must be decreed, in cases where no written statement has been filed as provided by Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code, the Supreme Court has held that even if the facts pleaded in the plaint are admitted then it cannot be said that the Court must pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff.
Balraj Taneja & Anr vs Sunil Madan & Anr on 8 September, 1999
Referring to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Balraj Taneja and Anr. v. Sunil Madan and Anr., (1999)8 S.C.C. 396 observed as under:
Ramachandra Ganpat Shinde And Another vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 17 August, 1993
In somewhat similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in Ramachandra Ganpat Shinde and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1993)4 S.C.C. 216 has observed as under:-
Prem Bakshi & Ors vs Dharam Dev & Ors on 9 January, 2002
In the case of Prem Bakshi and Ors. v. Dharam Dev and Ors., (2002-1) 130 P.L.R. 558 (S.C.), their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that amendments which are necessary to decide the controversy raised before the Court ordinarily are to be allowed because it would avoid multiplicity of litigation. It was further observed that orders allowing the amendments ordinarily should not be interfered with under Section 115 of the Code and the revision petition would not be maintainable.
Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. & ... vs Ladha Ram & Co on 23 September, 1976
5. Mr. Rajesh Garg, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has argued that admissions made by the defendant-respondents could not be resiled and in support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ladha Ram & Co., I A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 680.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
M/S. Estralla Rubber vs Dass Estate (Private) Ltd on 12 September, 2001
6. Having heard the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that this revision petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is true that the defendant-respondents have admitted the case of the plaintiff-petitioner but after the filing of the written statement on 13.6.1990; an application was filed within three months explaining in which circumstances the admissions were made. The Civil Judge being conscious of the fact that admissions were made, framed an issue, recorded the evidence and reached a finding that admissions made were erroneous. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was admission of such a kind which remained unexplained. It is well settled that erroneous admissions could be validly explained and on such basis amendments could always be allowed to be incorporated. This proposition has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Estra/la Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001)8 S.C.C. 97 and Gurdial Singh v. Raj Kumar Aneja, (2002-1)130 P.L.R. 835 (S.C.). It is further clear that even if the amendment is declined by allowing the present revision petition, the suit may not necessarily be disposed of because there is no obligation on the trial Court that on the presentation of a plaint and on admission of averments therein, the Court must pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner because it has to record its satisfaction. The Court can always take the view and direct the plaintiff-petitioner to lead evidence to prove his/her case.
1