1991 (10) TMI 320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e license and that consequently the plaint discloses no cause of action. The plaintiff, instead of lacing the challenge, is seeking permission to amend the plaint. And, it is this prayer which has generated the heat, for, as per the defendant, the plaint has necessarily to be rejected, and Order 7 rule 11 can-not be defeated by taking recourse to Order 6 rule 17 and by amending the plaint. Two judgments of this court namely Edwin Bhave v. Hari Chand, 1982 (Del) 1. 697 and N. D. Khannu vs Hindustan Industrial Corporation, AIR1981Delhi305 have provided the required ammunition, for, admittedly, they do per se lend supports to what has been contended by the defendant. (3) Exploiting the judgments to the fullest, it is argued that when a plai .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ious Legislature on the subject says that All such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties It seems to me that as soon as it appears that the may in which a party has framed his care will not lead to a decision of the real matter in controversy it is as much a matter of right on bids part to have it connected , if it can be done without injustice as anything else in the case is a matter of right. (5) This is the righteous path And, if this be so is it not necessary, in the ends of justice, to extend the beneficial legal principles ensconced in Order 6 rule 17 More so, when one hardly discerns any-thing in Order 7 rule 11 which may lead one to take t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (6) I find myself further fortified by judgment coming from the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and reported-as .Amarnath v. Union of India, Air 1979 J K 87. Even the Supreme Court in Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, [1978]2SCR614 seems to support the view that order 6, rule I / would act as panacea-where entirely new or inconsistent cause of action, amounting virtually' to the substitute of-a new plaint-or a new cause of action in place of what was originally there is not sought and that even very defective pleadings-may be permitted to be cured, so as to constitute a cause of action where there was none, provided necessary conditions, such as payment of either any additional court fees, which: play be ..payable, or, of costs of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X