At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme Court

Amendments Should Not Contradict Previous Admissions: High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Rejection of Written Statement Amendment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Calcutta, presided over by the Hon’ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, upheld the decision of a trial court to reject an application for the amendment of a written statement in a longstanding eviction suit, underlining the principles governing the amendment of pleadings.

The case, titled Pratyush Kumar Ray Vs. Khaitan Consultants Ltd. & Ors. (C.O 55 of 2018), involved an appeal against the trial court’s refusal to allow the defendants to amend their written statement to challenge the established landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiff.

Justice Chaudhuri, in his judgment, emphasized the legal principle that amendments should not introduce new facts that substantially alter the original nature of the pleadings or contradict previous admissions. This principle was crucial in denying the application for amendment. “Amendments should be made for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties,” the judge stated.

The defendants, who are the legal heirs of the original tenant, sought to include facts that would dispute the landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiff. However, the Court found that such amendments would fundamentally change the nature of the original defense and dispute admissions made previously by the defendants.

In his judgment, Justice Chaudhuri cited various precedents to support the decision, including the landmark cases of State Bank of Hyderabad vs. Town Municipal Council and Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeeb Builders Private Limited and Anr. These cases underlined the court’s discretion in allowing amendments to pleadings and the limitations thereof.

The Court also directed the trial court to expedite the conclusion of this long-pending suit, emphasizing the need for a swift resolution without unnecessary adjournments. This case, dating back to 1996, has seen various legal twists and turns, including prior appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of Decision: 17 November, 2023

Pratyush Kumar Ray Vs Khaitan Consultants Ltd. & Ors.

Latest Legal News