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

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

APEX COURT DIGEST 2016 - 1

Section 25(1) of the Customs Act-exempted from payment of customs duty and additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act.-Under Notification No.17/2001, that the benefit of duty exemption is available only for the import of the plant in full either in CKD or SKD condition. - The subject import can be considered only as a part of the plant.-Therefore, the goods under import are not eligible for the duty exemption as provided under the Notification No.17/2001.-what was imported was not a hot mix plant but only certain parts of such plant and, therefore, the exemption notification would not apply. -It is settled law that statements made to an Officer of Customs are admissible in evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.In the present case, both the oral evidence and the documentary evidence ultimately lead to the same conclusion: namely, that what was imported was not a hot mix plant that was complete in itself. - But not an unassembled Hot Mix Plant -have no application to an exemption notification which is issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPROTS