Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)
Govind Sharan Yadav vs Smt Kapoori Devi on 13 February, 2024 cites

J.Samuel & Ors vs Gattu Mhesh & Ors on 16 January, 2012

17. In light of the aforesaid enunciation, if the present controversy is appreciated, the application for amendment doesn't reflect that even after 'due diligence', the petitioner/plaintiff could not have raised this aspect prior to commencement of trial. Admittedly, in the written statement the aforesaid fact was already brought to the knowledge of the petitioner/plaintiff by the respondent/defendant but even thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff didn't cared to carry out the said amendment. Further from bare perusal of the application for amendment, two contrary pleas have been taken by the petitioner/plaintiff; one is that of due to some illusion, this fact could not be mentioned in the plaint and contrary to this, the said mistake was committed due to typographical error. The aforesaid aspect has been depreciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of J. Samuel & Others vs. Gattu Mahesh (supra) as cited by counsel for the respondent/defendant. For reference, paras 21 and 22 are quoted hereinbelow:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 429 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs National Building Material Supply, ... on 17 March, 1969

7. While placing reliance on the judgements passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon reported in 1969(1) SCC 869 and Mahila Ramkali Devi & Others vs. Nandram (Dead) through LRs & Others reported in (2015) 13 SCC 132, it was contended that a party cannot be refused to carry out the amendment merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of procedure and the Court should always give leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide, or that by his blunder, he has caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs and however negligent or careless may have been the first omission and however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side and as the present respondent/defendant could not show that any prejudice or injury caused to them, the learned Trial Court was bound to allow the said application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 383 - J C Shah - Full Document

Mahila Ramkali Devi And Ors vs Nandram Thr. Lrs.& Ors on 14 May, 2015

7. While placing reliance on the judgements passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon reported in 1969(1) SCC 869 and Mahila Ramkali Devi & Others vs. Nandram (Dead) through LRs & Others reported in (2015) 13 SCC 132, it was contended that a party cannot be refused to carry out the amendment merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of procedure and the Court should always give leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide, or that by his blunder, he has caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs and however negligent or careless may have been the first omission and however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side and as the present respondent/defendant could not show that any prejudice or injury caused to them, the learned Trial Court was bound to allow the said application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 91 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document
1