Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Vidyabai & Ors vs Padmalatha & Anr on 12 December, 2008
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner then relied upon the judgment
of Vidyabai & Ors. vs. Padmalatha & Anr. (supra) and submit
that though the learned Family Court, Seraikella-Kharsawan
relied upon the said judgment but failed to take note of paragraph
no.8 of the said judgment as reported in 2009 (1) Supreme 238,
6
C.M.P. No.1222 of 2025
(2026:JHHC:13547)
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has in no uncertain
manner held that filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-
chief of the witness, would amount to commencement of
proceeding.
M/S. Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs M/S. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors on 9 October, 2009
"33. The general principle is that courts at any stage of
the proceedings may allow either party to alter or amend the
pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just
and all those amendments must be allowed which are
imperative for determining the real question in controversy
between the parties. The basic principles of grant or refusal of
amendment articulated almost 125 years ago are still
considered to be correct statement of law and our courts have
been following the basic principles laid down in those cases."
Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors on 22 March, 2006
16. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. vs. K.K. Modi & Ors.
(supra) that the Court should allow all the amendments that may
be necessary for determining the real question in controversy
between the parties. The Original Matrimonial Suit No. 66 of 2025
has been filed with the prayer for restitution of conjugal right
between the parties. Once, the opposite party has taken the plea
that there is no marriage between the parties, so, it is incumbent
upon the petitioner that in order to succeed in the case, the
petitioner has to establish that a valid Hindu marriage has been
solemnized between the petitioner and the opposite party. May be
the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition was not expecting
the opposite party to take such a stand in her written statement
but once, the opposite party has taken such a stand, the details of
9
C.M.P. No.1222 of 2025
(2026:JHHC:13547)
the marriage including the exact location of the temple and the
details ceremony of the marriage that was solemnized, which are
sought to be introduced by way of amendment, in the considered
opinion of this Court are necessary for the purpose of determining
the real question in controversy between the parties. Similarly, the
date when the opposite party withdrawn herself from the
company of the petitioner as is claimed by the petitioner is also
necessary for determining the real question in controversy
between the parties. So is the pleadings sought to be incorporated
by way of amendment as to when the petitioner went to
Bhubaneswar for pursuing the opposite party, as claimed by him,
for restoration of matrimonial ties between them.
Sampath Kumar vs Ayyakannu And Anr on 13 September, 2002
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by
relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu & Anr. reported in
(2002) 7 SCC 559 wherein, in the facts of that case when the
amendment was refused by the courts below on the ground that it
was open to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit and not to change the
nature of relief sought in the plaint, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India observed that if it is permissible for the plaintiff to file an
independent suit, the same can be incorporated in the pending
suit also and distinguished the alteration in the basic structure of
the suit and the change in the nature of the relief sought in the
suit.
Balram Yadav vs Fulmaniya Yadav on 27 April, 2016
7. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Seraikella-Kharsawan
discussed the principle of law regarding the power of the court to
allow the amendment or pleadings and also taking into
consideration the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure regarding the requirement that, conclusion to be
arrived at by the court for allowing amendment, that in-spite of
due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before
the commencement of the trial, in case the amendment is sought
after commencement of the trial. A reference to several judicial
pronouncement regarding amendment has been made. Judgement
relied upon by the learned Family Court, Seraikella-Kharsawan
are in the case of M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma, reported in (2019)
4 SCC 332, judgment in the case of Balram Yadav vs. Fulmaniya
Yadav passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil
Appeal No. 4500 of 2016 dated 27.04.2016, Judgement in the case
of Vidyabai vs. Padmalatha, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409,
judgment in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs.
Narayanaswamy & Sons reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 and the
judgment in the case of Basavaraj vs. Indira reported in (2024) 3
SCC 705
4
C.M.P. No.1222 of 2025
(2026:JHHC:13547)
Section 9 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
M.Revanna vs Anjanamma (Dead) By Lrs. on 14 February, 2019
7. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Seraikella-Kharsawan
discussed the principle of law regarding the power of the court to
allow the amendment or pleadings and also taking into
consideration the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure regarding the requirement that, conclusion to be
arrived at by the court for allowing amendment, that in-spite of
due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before
the commencement of the trial, in case the amendment is sought
after commencement of the trial. A reference to several judicial
pronouncement regarding amendment has been made. Judgement
relied upon by the learned Family Court, Seraikella-Kharsawan
are in the case of M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma, reported in (2019)
4 SCC 332, judgment in the case of Balram Yadav vs. Fulmaniya
Yadav passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil
Appeal No. 4500 of 2016 dated 27.04.2016, Judgement in the case
of Vidyabai vs. Padmalatha, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409,
judgment in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs.
Narayanaswamy & Sons reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 and the
judgment in the case of Basavaraj vs. Indira reported in (2024) 3
SCC 705
4
C.M.P. No.1222 of 2025
(2026:JHHC:13547)
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Basavaraj vs Indira on 14 July, 2015
7. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Seraikella-Kharsawan
discussed the principle of law regarding the power of the court to
allow the amendment or pleadings and also taking into
consideration the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure regarding the requirement that, conclusion to be
arrived at by the court for allowing amendment, that in-spite of
due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before
the commencement of the trial, in case the amendment is sought
after commencement of the trial. A reference to several judicial
pronouncement regarding amendment has been made. Judgement
relied upon by the learned Family Court, Seraikella-Kharsawan
are in the case of M. Revanna vs. Anjanamma, reported in (2019)
4 SCC 332, judgment in the case of Balram Yadav vs. Fulmaniya
Yadav passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil
Appeal No. 4500 of 2016 dated 27.04.2016, Judgement in the case
of Vidyabai vs. Padmalatha, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409,
judgment in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs.
Narayanaswamy & Sons reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 and the
judgment in the case of Basavaraj vs. Indira reported in (2024) 3
SCC 705
4
C.M.P. No.1222 of 2025
(2026:JHHC:13547)
1