High Court dismissed a CPC Order 6 Rule 17 revision petition. The bench upheld the trial court's rejection of an amendment application seeking to allege fraud due to lack of averments on due diligence.
Petition rejected and pending application for amendment dismissed without a bonus on account of deficiency in pleading.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.388 of 2012.
Date of decision: 07.05.2013.
Shera. ….Petitioner/Plaintiff.
Versus
Faquir Chand & others.
….Respondent/Defendant/ Proforma respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the Petitioner : Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral).
This petition is directed against the order dated 24.11.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Nalagarh, in Civil Suit No.240/1 of 2007 rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes
2
May 7, 2013. ( Kuldip Singh), (krt) Judge.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether plaint amendment seeking fraud plea is permissible after evidence is led.
Whether clarificatory amendment requiring due diligence is allowed at advanced stage.
Shera
Faquir Chand & others
Kuldip Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
