In a writ petition challenging the allowance of an amendment in the plaint, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that as trial had not commenced, the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC did not apply, and the amendment did not change the nature of the suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2593 OF 2013
Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.
Court's or Judge's orders
Mr.S.P.Brahme, advocate for the petitioners.
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.
Date : 04.04.2013.
PER COURT :
Aggrieved thereby, the defendant has filed the present petition.
2
through the order, the pleadings. It is not disputed that trial has not commenced. In view of that proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the C.P.C. would not apply.
costs.
(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
Dt.04.04.2013. asp/office/wp2593.13
3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court's order allowing amendment in the plaint despite objections is maintainable.
Whether Rule 17 of Order VI of the CPC applies when trial has not commenced.
Whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the amendment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Defendant
S.V.GANGAPURWALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court