Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.45 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 40 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
In Re Vivekananada Nidhi And Others vs Smt. Ashima Goswami on 7 February, 1997
The applicant has also correctly stated by relying upon
judgments passed in the cases of Lakha Ram Sharma vs Balar
Marketing Pvt. Ltd. V (2003) SLT 82, in re Vivekananda Nidhi vs
Ashima Goswami AIR 1997 Calcutta 340 & Harish Kumar Chaudhary
Suit No.260/09 Page 2 of 5
-3-
vs Vimal Wadahwan & Anr. 47 (1992) DLT 246 that the amendment in
the plaint can not be refused on the ground that the amendment
would take away the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit.
Sampath Kumar vs Ayyakannu And Anr on 13 September, 2002
In the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu & Anr.,
AIR 2002 SC 3369, it was held that amendments which do not alter
the basic structure of the suit must be allowed and that mere delay is
no ground for refusing the prayer.
Jagdish And Ors. vs Har Sarup on 27 January, 1978
5. It is correctly stated by the applicant by relying upon the
judgments passed in the cases of Jagdish vs Har Sarup AIR 1978 Delhi
233 and M.R.K. Rau vs Corporation, City of Bengalore AIR 1992
Karnatka 411, that right to claim damages is inherent in the suit filed
for perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction. As per proviso of
Section 40 (2) of Specific Relief Act, the court cannot refuse the
permission to the plaintiff to include the claim for damages.
Amendment brought about under proviso of section 40 (2) of Specific
Relief Act, is mandatory whereas it is directory under Order 6 Rule 17,
CPC.
Vishwa Nath And Anr. vs Chaman Lal Khanna And Anr. on 19 March, 1975
In the case of Vishwa Nath & Anr. Vs. Chaman Lal
Khanna & Anr., AIR 1975 Delhi 117, the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi observed "the courts do not punish the litigants for the
mistakes they make. Courts of law are not Court of penal jurisdiction.
They exist for the sake of doing justice
Atul Maini Chopra vs Adarsh Bhalla on 10 January, 2005
In the case of "Atul Maini Chopra Vs. Adarsh Bhalla,
119 (2005) DLT 593", the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that
amendment cannot be declined merely on the ground that it is not
believable. Merits of the amendment are not to be considered at the
stage of examining the amendment application.
Ashok K. Ghosh vs Rotary International on 7 July, 1993
In the case of Ashok K. Ghosh Vs. Rotary
International & Ors., 50 (1993) DLT 339, it was held that
amendment applications must be considered liberally.
Sri M.R.K. Rau And Others vs Corporation Of The City Of Bangalore, By ... on 16 January, 1992
5. It is correctly stated by the applicant by relying upon the
judgments passed in the cases of Jagdish vs Har Sarup AIR 1978 Delhi
233 and M.R.K. Rau vs Corporation, City of Bengalore AIR 1992
Karnatka 411, that right to claim damages is inherent in the suit filed
for perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction. As per proviso of
Section 40 (2) of Specific Relief Act, the court cannot refuse the
permission to the plaintiff to include the claim for damages.
Amendment brought about under proviso of section 40 (2) of Specific
Relief Act, is mandatory whereas it is directory under Order 6 Rule 17,
CPC.