9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to amend the plaint to sue as the manager of the joint family and implead his brother as the second plaintiff. 2. Whether the amendment would introduce a new case or alter the cause of action. 3. Whether the absence of proper notice under S. 80, Civil P. C., justifies dismissing the application for amendment. 4. Whether the court should allow amendments that do not deprive the defendant of an existing right or can be compensated by costs. 5. Whether known facts at the time of filing the plaint should prevent the plaintiff from amending the plaint. 6. Whether the court should interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower court in refusing the amendment. 7. Whether false statements in the application justify refusing the amendment as a punishment. 8. The costs allocation for the amendment application and the Civil Revision Petition. 9. The final order regarding setting aside the lower court's order. Analysis: 1. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to sue as the joint family manager and implead his brother as the second plaintiff. The defendant opposed, fearing loss of a limitation plea. The court considered Or. 6 R. 17, Civil P. C., allowing amendments for determining real controversies. Previous cases supported suing as a representative of a larger group without amending. The plaintiff's intention was to describe himself correctly, not change the cause of action. The District Munsif's reliance on a lack of proper notice under S. 80, Civil P. C., led to dismissing the amendment application. 2. The court discussed the duty to allow amendments enabling real issues to be raised without injuring the opposite party. Amendments should not deprive the defendant of an existing right but can be allowed if compensation through costs suffices. The court emphasized that rules should not defeat justice and delay alone should not bar amendments. The court disagreed with the lower court's reliance on known facts at the time of filing to prevent amendments, citing precedents allowing amendments even with negligence. 3. The court addressed the discretion of the lower court in refusing the amendment, citing differing views from the Calcutta and Madras High Courts. It favored correcting interlocutory orders in revision promptly rather than after heavy expenses in appeal. The court also rejected the notion of refusing amendments solely as punishment for false statements in applications. 4. Ultimately, the court set aside the lower court's order refusing the amendment, granting costs to the defendant for the application but awarding costs of the Civil Revision Petition to the petitioner. The final order was to set aside the lower court's decision.
|
