Search results
An order rejecting an application for amendment of a written statement passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nawanshahar, Punjab and Haryana and affirmed by a learned Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, is now under challenge before this Court by way of a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of I...
- Facts
- Issue
- Ruling
- Conclusion
A suit was filed by the plaintiff-Respondent 1 (Manohar Singh) for a declaration that he is the owner and in possession of 40 kanals and 15 marlas comprised in Kh. Nos. 16(8-0), 17(8-0), 19(8-0), 20/1(7-4) and 25/1(1-11) of Rect. No. 19 of Khewat No. 212 of Khatauni No. 263 as fully described in the schedule to the plaint (hereinafter referred to a...
Whether the High Court and the trial court erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendants?
The Court held that courts should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. Therefore, in view of the provisions made under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC it cannot be doubted that wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the court to allow...
The High Court and the trial court erred in rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendants. The defendants are directed to file an amended written statement within a period of one month from the date of production of this order before the trial court positively. The trial court is directed to dispose of the...
Jun 6, 2022 · Manohar Singh (Baldev Singh), the Supreme Court was considering a challenge against an order of the trial court (which was affirmed by the High Court) rejecting an application for amendment of a written statement.
Baldev Singh & Ors. Etc vs Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc on 3 August, 2006. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement, this Special Leave Petition has been filed which, on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.
Aug 3, 2006 · Case Law. BALDEV SINGH & ORS. ETC. vs MANOHAR SINGH & ANR. ETC. Supreme Court, 03-08-2006. Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related. Vincent. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3362 of 2006. PETITIONER: Baldev Singh & Ors. Etc. RESPONDENT: Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/08/2006. BENCH:
- 03 August 2006
- AR.LAKSHMANAN,TARUN CHATTERJEE
- C.A. No.-003362-003362 / 2006
Recently this Court in Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh held: (SCC p.504, para 15) “15. Let us now take up the last ground on which the application for amendment of the written statement was rejected by the High Court as well as the trial court. The rejection was made on the ground that inconsistent plea cannot be allowed to be taken.
View Complete document. Baldev Singh & Ors. Etc vs Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc on 3 August, 2006. Showing the contexts in which amendment in amendment application appears in the document. Change context size Current.
