Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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.

Similar News