High Court under Article 227 quashed trial court order rejecting plaint amendment application for causing grave miscarriage due to linkless conclusion and lack of reasons. Directed retrial.
Trial court directed to reconsider amendment of plaint afresh; parties to appear for instructions.
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.
WP(C) No.9596 of 2010
08. 18.11.2016 In this application under Article 227 of the Constitut
ion the petitioners call in question the order dated 27.4.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (
Jr.Divn.), Pattamundai (Kendrapara) in T.S. No. 207 of 2000 rejecting their prayer for amendme
nt of the plaint under order 6 rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears on behalf of the opp.p
arty no.1.
Perused the impugned order.
3. Although it is seen that the order in question is lengthy one yet on going thr
ough the consideration part which stands at the end, it appears that the trial court having n
oted the petition averments, restating the submission of the learned counsel and further quoti
ng some decisions of this Court, has abruptly jumped into conclusion that the proposed amendme
nt if allowed would change the nature and character of the suit. The order is thus found to be
quite linkless. No reason has been assigned as to how the trial court arrived at such conclus
ion. Merely on this ground this Court is constrained to hold that the order in question has ca
used grave miscarriage of justice and as such is liable to be quashed which is hereby done.
Accordingly, the trial court is directed to consider the matter of amendment o
f the plaint afresh at the earliest and proceed with the suit thereafter in accordance with la
w for its early disposal, preferably within a period of six months from 15.12.2016 when the pa
rties are directed to appear before the trial court to receive further instruction.
4. The writ application is disposed of.
No order as to cost.
Aks
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order of the trial court rejecting application for amendment of plaint is liable to be quashed for causing grave miscarriage of justice.
Whether the trial court was correct in concluding that the proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the suit without assigning reasons.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners
Opposite Party No.1
Aks
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court