Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C for the amendment of written statement -if the amendment to the written statement is allowed, it would completely efface the admissions by pleading from the earliest opportunity in the litigation. The effort through amendment is to oust the jurisdiction of the Court. Such amendments cannot be allowed. - 2015 A.P. (12/2014) MSK LAW REPORTS 16

The application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C for the amendment of written statement is to add the following  averments:   Para 15) That the defendant obtained two and half mulgies in the year 2002 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,800/- for each mulgie (the total rent is Rs.4,500/-) from its original owner, the rent enhanced to Rs.2,700/- per month for each  mulgie, (the total rent  is Rs.6,750/-). For the convenient purpose the defendant paid lump sum.  As per the knowledge received by the defendant. According to the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent  & Eviction Control Act, 1960) the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is not maintainable as the Honble Court as no jurisdiction to entertain the case. Rent Control Act is only applicable to the plaintiff and defendant and the civil suit is not maintainable.         The said application was dismissed by the Court below. Hence, Civil Revision Petition.-

 On critically analyzing both  the English and
Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to
be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the
application for amendment:
       (1)      whether the amendment sought is imperative
for proper and effective
       @ page-SC 1890
       Adjudication of the case;
       (2)      whether the application for amendment is
bona fide or mala fide;
       (3)      the amendment should not cause such  
prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated
adequately in terms of money;
       (4)      refusing amendment would in fact lead to
injustice or lead to multiple litigation;
       (5)      whether the proposed amendment  
constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and
character of the case; and
       (6)      as a general rule, the court should decline
amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would
be barred by limitation on the date of application.  These
are some of the important factors which may be kept in
mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6
Rule 17.  These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

 As stated supra, the petitioner/defendant had admitted the
factum of tenancy and the plea that is sought to be introduced now
was not put forward at the earliest point of time either while
replying to the legal notice got issued by the respondents/plaintiffs
or while filing the written statement, at the first instance or at the
earliest when he had sought amendment of the written statement
vide I.A.No.710 of 2013.  As held by the Supreme Court in the
above referred judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
respondents/plaintiffs, if the amendment to the written statement
is allowed, it would completely efface the admissions by pleading
from the earliest opportunity in the litigation.  The effort through
amendment is to oust the jurisdiction of the Court.  Such
amendments cannot be allowed. 

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)