Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act

Amendment Cannot Be Allowed After Commencement of Trial: Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh upheld a decision that dismissed an application for amendment of pleading in a civil suit. The case, CR-3486 of 2023, saw petitioner Mohan Chauhan challenging an order dated 08.05.2023, which had been passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat.

The dispute revolved around a civil suit filed by Chauhan, seeking a decree of possession through specific performance of a contract and challenging the legality of a notice dated 01.06.2016. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had entered into an agreement to sell agricultural land and had received earnest money of Rs.36,31,250/- from him.

In a significant observation, the court noted that the "application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C, 1908 for the amendment purpose cannot be allowed after the commencement of the trial." The court also pointed out a "lack of due diligence" on the part of the plaintiff, as the application for amendment was filed at the rebuttal stage.

The plaintiff sought to introduce an amendment in the plaint to include additional legal notices and their publications as illegal, null, and void. However, the court upheld the decision to reject the application, emphasizing that the proposed amendment did not introduce any new fact or change the nature of the suit.

The judgment underscores the importance of timely and diligent action in legal proceedings and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Date of Decision: 31 October 2023

Mohan Chauhan VS Tej Singh and others        

Latest Legal News