This writ petition challenged the trial court’s rejection of a plaint amendment seeking relief against the State and specific party. The High Court held the amendment unnecessary as it pertained to consequences of the decree rather than the suit itself and dismissed the writ.
Petition dismissed; order modifying plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC denied.
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.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(227) No.176 of 2020
---- Petitioners
Versus
| ---- Respondents | |
|---|---|
| For Petitioner |
: Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. |
| For respondent No.1 |
: Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate. |
| For State/respondent No.2 | : Mr. Sameer Oraon, Govt. Advocate. |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board
16/08/2021
-2-
Civil Suit, petitioner filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. read with Section 155 of C.P.C. praying for amendment in the relief clause. The learned trial Court has rejected this application vide impugned order holding that the application filed is delayed and secondly, the reliefs are sought against the defendant No.2/State which is a formal party.
proposed was not necessary. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.
10.Accordingly, the petition stands disposed off.
Sd/(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge
Monika
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the District Judge’s order rejecting the petitioner’s application for amendment in the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Whether the proposed amendment against the State respondent is unnecessary for the disposal of the civil suit seeking specific performance.
Whether the amendment sought would change the nature of the suit or delay the trial at a final stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Yoshodabai through L.Rs. Vs. Umashanker Gupta & Ors.Referred¶17
Yoshodabai through L.Rs. Vs. Umashanker Gupta & Ors. 2020 (3) CGLJ 497
Vijay Hathising Shah & Anr. Vs. Gitaben Prashottamdas Mukhi & Ors.Referred¶17
Vijay Hathising Shah & Anr. Vs. Gitaben Prashottamdas Mukhi & Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 360 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mahavir Chand Chajed
Gopal Daga
The State Of Chhattisgarh
Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
