9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Refusal to amend the plaint to claim specific portions of the land. 2. Discretion of the Court in granting or refusing an amendment. 3. Applicability of Section 115, Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) in interfering with discretionary orders. 4. Precedent regarding the review of discretionary orders under Section 115, C.P.C. 5. Interpretation of Section 107, Government of India Act, 1919 and its relevance to the case. 6. Comparison of recent pronouncements of the Privy Council with previous decisions. 7. Court's authority to interfere under the new Constitution. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Calcutta involved a petition for revision of an order by a Subordinate Judge that refused to amend a plaint to specify portions of land claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff initially sought a declaration of title in the land and claimed a six anna interest, implying an undivided share. However, it became evident during the proceedings that the plaintiff needed to amend the plaint to claim specific portions of the land. The Subordinate Judge denied the amendment, questioning the plaintiff's exclusive possession of demarcated portions. The Chief Justice emphasized that if the amendment was necessary to decide the real issue, it should be granted despite doubts about the plaintiff's ability to prove the claim. The Court found that justice required allowing the amendment to determine the plaintiff's entitlement to specific portions of the land. Regarding the discretion of the Court in granting or refusing an amendment, the Court discussed the applicability of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) in interfering with discretionary orders. Citing a previous case, the Court highlighted that there is no absolute rule preventing review of discretionary orders under Section 115, C.P.C., especially if the lower Court wrongly rejects an application to amend. The judgment also delved into the interpretation of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1919, and its impact on the Court's authority to review discretionary orders. The Court addressed the comparison between recent pronouncements of the Privy Council and previous decisions, emphasizing that the limitations imposed by the Government of India Act, 1935, did not restrict the Court's right to superintendence in judicial matters under the new Constitution. Consequently, the Court concluded that it had the authority to interfere under Section 115, C.P.C., or the powers granted by the new Constitution to superintend the lower Courts. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the application, set aside the Subordinate Judge's order, and remanded the case with directions to allow the amendment of the plaint. The defendants were granted the opportunity to file amended written statements, and the case was to proceed accordingly. The judgment was made absolute, with the costs of the application to be included in the suit. Justice Sarkar concurred with the decision, affirming the Court's ruling.
|
