Irrelevant amendments to the WS are not to be allowed

-

 


Shubham Budhiraja[1]

 


A filed a suit for recovery of rent and possession against B. Later suit was withdrawn and fresh commercial suit filed. B filed application for amendment of WS to incorporate changes such as to correct typo error in suit property, etc. The trial court rejected the application and allowed plaintiff application for judgment on admission. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court affirmed the order and held that:[2] 

 

(i)                 The provision under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of pleading was restored by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 with certain modifications. Post amendment, no application for amendment of pleadings shall, be allowed unless the Court concludes that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.

 

(ii)                In the case of B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai, AIR 2000 SC 614 (616), it has been categorically observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that, all amendments of the pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for the determination of the real controversy in the Suit provided. The proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action based on which the original lis was raised or defense was taken.

 

(iii)              The principles applicable to the amendment of the plaint are equally applicable to the amendment of the written statement. The Courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written-statement.

 

(iv)              the first condition which must be satisfied before the amendment can be allowed by the Court is whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy. If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment cannot be allowed. On the other hand, if the amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy “between the parties, the amendment should be allowed even though the Court may think the party seeking the amendment will not be able to prove the amended plea”. This is the basic test that governs the Court‟s unchartered powers of amendment of pleadings. “No amendment should be allowed when it does not satisfy this cardinal test”. [Narsing Prosad v. Steel Products Ltd. AIR 1953 Cal 15 (17)].

 

(v)                Once the facts to be amended are already mentioned in the written statement, there is no rationale in seeking the amendment of the written statement to incorporate the same facts but in different words. 

 


[1] Advocate, Delhi High Court [ACS, BCOM(H), LLB], Budhirajalawchambers@gmail.com

[2] Dhruv Kumar v. Raj, CM(M) 1821/2023, Delhi High Court

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

REPUGANCY UNDER ARTICLE 254 & TEST OF VALIDATING LAW

-
Image
  Shubham Budhiraja [1] [1] Company Secretary, LLB Final Year,DU & Bcom (H) The land acquisition falls in concurrent list and parliament in year 2013 has introduced a new act which provides for rehabilitation, compensation and procedure on land acquisition of property. The State of T.N has made 3 different state laws w.r.t. land acquisition which was struck off by the High Court. Thereafter, state of TN in year 2019 enacted the same law but with president assent under Article 254 to avoid the repugnancy with 2013 act under Article 254. The appeal filed before apex court w.r.t. repugnancy of 2019 state law with 2013 central law & test of validating the struck off law. The Supreme Court observed as: VALIDATING A LAW WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT Case Law Relevant Remarks National  Agricultural  Cooperative  Marketing  Federation  of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union o...
Read more

Whether a person can be appointed as an arbitrator if his daughter is married to the son of the eldest brother of one of the parties in the arbitration proceedings?

-
Image
    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Two brothers running a family business in the form of a company and dispute arise between them and both decide to resolve through arbitration. During course of arbitration proceedings, one of party filed Section 14(2) r/w Section 15 Petition filed challenging mandate of arbitrator as being terminated because son of arbitrator is married to daughter of eldest brother of one of party and thus should be disqualified under Section 12(5) being ‘close family relationship’. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court declined the relief and held that neither the Seventh Schedule of the A&C Act nor the IBA Guidelines define the expression ‘close family relationship’. The plain language of Entry no. 9 indicates that it is not the legislative intent to render a distant relative of the parties to be ineligible for being appointed as an arbitrator, if both the parties so agree. It is not sufficient that the arbitrator is related to any one of the parties; the relation...
Read more

Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?

-
Image
  Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?   Under what circumstances, photocopy of agreement to sell can be relied upon as secondary evidence?   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for possession against B on basis of agreement to sell executed in the year 1989. During the hearing, A filed IA for reading photocopy of agreement to sell as secondary evidence because he is not able to find the original agreement to sell. The Trial Court allowed the IA but in review rejected that because agreement to sell was insufficiently stamped therefore bar of section 35 of stamp act applies. The High Court confirmed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bar of Section 35 will not apply because amendment of 1990 wherein explanation was added to the stamp act was substantive in nature and therefore new obligation of stamping cannot be imposed on agreement of sell executed between A and B. [2] ...
Read more