MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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