Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission Section 127 CrPC | Past Compromise Not An Eternal Estoppel To Bar Wife From Seeking Enhancement In Maintenance: Orissa High Court States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Or Adjudicate Title Disputes: Telangana High Court Principal Employer Cannot Abdicate Statutory Liability For Overtime Wages Of Contract Labour Despite Contractual Indemnity Clauses: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Re-valuation Of Structures Once Compensation Dispute Is Adjudicated Under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act: Telangana High Court Revenue Village Naming | Government Must Ensure Names Do Not Reflect Any Person, Caste, Or Religion Under Policy Guidelines: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Status As 'Payee' Or 'Holder In Due Course': Himachal Pradesh High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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