SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Amendment of Pleadings not Allowed After Dismissal of Suit: P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The lower appellate court's decision to grant the plaintiff's request under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for changing the plaint after the lawsuit was dismissed was reversed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, who also accepted a revision plea.

The Order VI Rule 7 CPC clearly prohibits revision of pleadings after the trial has begun, the Bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said, unless the court determines that the parties could not have raised an issue earlier while exercising reasonable diligence.

According to the court, a request for a modification based on the claim that the suit property could not be adequately explained because of an error cannot be a justification for approving the change.

In the current instance, the plaintiff filed a claim for possession of a property and also demanded accusations of unauthorised occupation. As a result of the plaintiff's inability to establish the defendant's ownership of the property, the trial court dismissed the lawsuit.

Due to an oversight, the plaintiff was unable to clarify the limits of the suit property when the lawsuit was dismissed, so he filed an application to amend the plaint. The lower court granted the application.

The trial court dismissed the lawsuit after the amendment was requested, and the amendment aimed to close the loopholes that the trial court had emphasised in its dismissal order, the High Court stated in its decision on appeal.

According to the High Court, approving the modification would violate Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC in this situation.

Paramjit Singh

VS

Punjab Wakf Board

Download Judgment

[gview file="http://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/CR_5822_2017_29_10_2022_FINAL_ORDER.pdf"]

Latest Legal News