Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)
Jamni Dass vs Jugal Kishore on 10 November, 2000 cites

Gurdev Singh & Ors vs Mehnga Ram & Anr on 11 July, 1997

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned order is liable to be set aside. Irrespective of the fact that earlier application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was dismissed by the trial Court, it does not debar and detract the plaintiffs to repeat the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. at the appellate stage. The order of the lower court does survive only up to the stage of the suit. The plaintiffs could repeat the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC when it was not even decided on merits by the trial Court as well as by the first appellate court because the stage of making the application was after the arguments were concluded by the trial court earlier. Now it has to be seen independently whether the proposed amendment is destructive and material in consistent with the case put up by the petitioner before the trial Court. I am of the opinion that the proposed amendment ought to have been allowed by the first appellate court and this application should not have been dismissed by relying upon the order of learned trial court or of the Revisional Court-Learned counsel for the respondents, however, relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Gurdev Singh and others v. Mehnga Ram and another, AIR 1997 SC 3S72 : 1997(3) RRR 712 (SC) and submits that when the order of the appellate Court allowing additional evidence is challenged in the High Court in a revision such revision is not competent. This judgment is distinguishable on facts. Moreover, this court is of the opinion that allowing or disallowing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is a case decided within the meaning of Section 115 CPC and gives a cause of action to the aggrieved party to file revision before the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 59 - Full Document
1