Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.40 seconds)K.S. Bhoopathy And Ors vs Kokila And Ors on 8 May, 2000
In the case of Anurag Mittal Vs. Shaily Mishra Mittal2, the
Supreme Court emphasized that, in the aforesaid judgment in
the case of K. S. Bhoopathy & Ors. Vs. Kokila & Ors (supra),
1 (2000) 5 SCC 458
2
19/33
SAINATH
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:36:20 :::
WP 1277.24.DOC
the Supreme Court has enunciated that the word
'abandonment' in Order XXIII Rule 1(1) of CPC is "absolute
withdrawal", which is different from the withdrawal after taking
the permission of the Court as envisaged under sub-rule (3) of
Order XXIII Rule 1(1) of CPC. It was reiterated that Order XXIII
Rule 1(1) of CPC, gives an absolute right to the plaintifff to
withdraw his suit or abandon any part of his claim.
Rahul Kumar Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 25 July, 2017
are of no avail to Defendants 3 to 17 on the facts and in
the circumstances of this case. In the reported decision,
this Court did not have to consider whether a
counterclaim can be filed after the trial is concluded and
whether it could be solely directed against a co-
defendant. The Court was also not dealing with an
inchoate counterclaim in that case.
B.K-Narayana Pillai vs Pararneswaran Pillai & Anr on 13 December, 1999
In the case of B. K. Narayan Pillai Vs. Parameswaran
Pillai & Anr.3, the Supreme Court enunciated that, though the
principles applicable to the amendments of the plaint are
3 (2000) 1 SCC 712
21/33
SAINATH
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:36:20 :::
WP 1277.24.DOC
equally applicable to the amendments of the written statements,
yet, the Courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of
the written statement as the question of prejudice is less likely
to operate in that event.
Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors vs Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors on 18 April, 2007
In the case of Usha Balasaheb Swami & Ors. Vs. Kiran
Appaso Swami & Ors.4, the distinction in the matter of
amendment in the plaint and the written statement was
elucidated as under:
Rohit Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar (Now State Of Jharkhand) & ... on 17 October, 2006
7 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 912
27/33
SAINATH
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:36:20 :::
WP 1277.24.DOC
integra in view of the decision of this Court in Rohit
Singh (supra). (emphasis supplied)
Mr. Anurag Mittal vs Mrs. Shaily Mishra Mittal on 24 August, 2018
In the case of Anurag Mittal Vs. Shaily Mishra Mittal2, the
Supreme Court emphasized that, in the aforesaid judgment in
the case of K. S. Bhoopathy & Ors. Vs. Kokila & Ors (supra),
1 (2000) 5 SCC 458
2
19/33
SAINATH
::: Uploaded on - 06/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/01/2026 20:36:20 :::
WP 1277.24.DOC
the Supreme Court has enunciated that the word
'abandonment' in Order XXIII Rule 1(1) of CPC is "absolute
withdrawal", which is different from the withdrawal after taking
the permission of the Court as envisaged under sub-rule (3) of
Order XXIII Rule 1(1) of CPC. It was reiterated that Order XXIII
Rule 1(1) of CPC, gives an absolute right to the plaintifff to
withdraw his suit or abandon any part of his claim.
Section 11 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Rajul Manoj Shah Alias Rajeshwari ... vs Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel on 4 August, 2023
31. Following the aforesaid pronouncements, in a recent
decision in the case of Rajul Manoj Shah @ Rajeshwari Rasiklal
Sheth Vs. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel & Anr.7, the Supreme
Court held that, a counter-claim filed primarily against a co-
defendant was not maintainable. The observations of the
Supreme Court read as under:
1