9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and Section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act. 2. Rejection of the application for amendment by the trial court. 3. Interpretation of Section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act. 4. Applicability of amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 5. Decision on the revision petition. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, along with proforma respondents, filed a suit seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. Subsequently, an application was made to amend the plaint to include a claim for damages. The trial court rejected the application citing potential limitation issues and the amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 2. The trial court's rejection of the application for amendment was based on two main grounds: potential limitation issues and the interpretation of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The petitioner, aggrieved by this decision, filed a revision petition challenging the trial court's order. 3. Section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act provides that no relief for damages shall be granted unless claimed in the plaint. However, the provision also allows for the plaintiff to seek an amendment at any stage of the proceedings to include such a claim for damages. The court emphasized the imperative nature of this provision, stating that the court must allow such an amendment. 4. Regarding the applicability of the amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the court clarified that in cases where the suit was filed before the amendment came into effect, the unamended rule would apply. However, this clarification did not impact the decision on the revision petition in this case. 5. The court set aside the trial court's order rejecting the application for amendment and allowed the plaintiffs to make the necessary amendments to the suit. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 3,000 to be paid to the State of Himachal Pradesh due to the delayed nature of the application. Additionally, the court provided directions for further proceedings, including the filing of the amended plaint, framing of additional issues, and timelines for evidence submission and case resolution. In conclusion, the revision petition was disposed of with the decision to allow the plaintiffs to amend the suit for damages, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and procedural rules governing such amendments.
|
