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

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more