Court dismissed revision petition challenging rejection of plaintiff's amendment application. Held no error in trial court's order as amendment sought was unnecessary and delay was attributable to defendant. Stay application also dismissed.
Revision dismissed; Stay Application disposed of.
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.
CLR No. 41 of 2013 With CLMA no. 4427 of 2013 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Advocate, present for the revisionists. Heard.
This revision is directed against order dated 26.04.2013, passed by Judge, Small Cause Court/1st Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, in SCC Suit No. 18 of 2009, whereby said court has rejected the amendment application 97C moved by the defendant (present revisionist).
I have perused the paragraph sought to be incorporated in the plaint through application and reasons for which, the trial court has rejected the amendment application, in the Suit, pending at the stage of argument.
The defendant/revisionist is a tenant. It appears that in order to delay the trial instituted in the year 2009, the defendant has moved the amendment application. The amendment sought does not appear to be necessary, nor is there any ground mentioned as to why amendment could not be sought earlier. In this connection, proviso added in Order 6 Rule 17 vide Act No. 22 of 2002, requires to be kept in mind.
In the above circumstances, since there no error in the appears jurisdictional impugned order, nor there is any failure of justice, this revision is summarily dismissed (Stay Application No. 4427 of 2013, also stands dismissed).
(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)
08.05.2013 JM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the amendment of plaint application by the trial court under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is erroneous.
Whether the defendant's claim of delay in seeking amendment warrants the setting aside of the trial court's order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Defendant/Revisionist
Plaintiff
Prafulla C. Pant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
