9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this legal judgment include the rejection of an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the High Court, and the scope of allowing amendments in pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17. Rejection of Amendment Application: The defendant in a suit filed an application under Section 17(2) and 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, seeking an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The Trial Court rejected the application, which was later allowed by the District Judge but set aside by the High Court under Article 227. The Supreme Court found that the proposed amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute and to avoid further litigation. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 in passing the impugned order. Scope of Amendment in Pleadings: The Supreme Court emphasized that the power to allow the amendment of pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 should be exercised in the interests of justice and to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings. The Court cited previous judgments to highlight that amendments should be allowed unless they result in injustice to the other party. The Court noted that a mere delay in seeking an amendment is not sufficient to refuse it, especially when no serious prejudice is caused to the opposing party. The Court reiterated that amendments are permitted to ensure effective adjudication of disputes and to prevent unnecessary litigation. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the District Judge's decision to allow the amendment application. The Court emphasized the importance of a liberal approach towards amendments in pleadings to facilitate the proper adjudication of disputes and avoid prolonged legal proceedings.
|
