CPC - Order 6 Rule 17

  1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17, Order 1, Rule 10 - Amendment of plaint - Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell - Existence of a sale transaction between his vendor and a third party involving the suit property and therefore could not incorporate such facts in the plaint - Petitioner appears to have a very valuable right to amend his pleadings to protect his direct interest by making the vendee a party so that the entire controversy between the parties can be resolved in one proceeding - To this end, the respondent would appear to have no valid right to oppose such a prayer - In any case, he would have a right to file a written statement to the amended plaint and to take all his pleas available to him in law including one of the limitation, if advised. (176) P.L.R.
  2. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17, Order 1, Rule 10 - Filed single application - Application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC would have to be decided first to determine who should be added as parties in ongoing  suit - That is decided - All such added parties would have a right to do many things including filing or presenting set offs and counter claims, applications under Order 7 Rule 10 & 11 CPC, raising issues of limitations, seeking recall of witnesses examined by the plaintiff in their absence to face cross-examination, demanding reframing of issues, relying on burden and onus, and god knows-what, and other lurking steps in the proceedings not known or imagined even to a trained legal mind. (176) P.L.R.
  3. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17, Order 1, Rule 10 - Filed single application - As a a prophylactic, trial courts should disallow acceptance of such clubbed applications at the threshold, and if insisted, they should be returned forthwith to their owners with liberty to file them afresh by removing such patent defects - Mode adopted by the plaintiff in presenting two requests in one application can create havoc on the lis by impairing a Judge to think rationally and purposively when he is already overburdened with judicial work weighed in units - One application one order should be the norm scrupulously followed in the trial courts without any exception - If insisted, the Trial Courts should feel free to invoke their powers under Section 35B CPC to impose costs. (176) P.L.R.
  4. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17, Order 1, Rule 10 - Where all the L.Rs. were not impleaded - Application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC cannot be decided ex parte or without recording reasons after hearing both sides -  The remaining LR defendants not impleaded by the plaintiff have valuable right to put their case forward for and against the amendment prayed for and to present their written written statement - No relief can be granted by court which is not prayed for. (175) P.L.R.
  5. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17, Order 11, Rule 2, Section 11, Explanation IV - Amendment of a suit for injunction into a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction - Had the trial Court refused permission to amend the plaint to the plaintiff-respondent, a great prejudice would have been caused to him disentitling him to enforce his legal rights on the basis of the agreement of sale  as per the provisions of Order II Rule 2 and constructive res judicata under Section 11 Explanation IV of the Code of Civil Procedure - By allowing the amendment, multiplicity of the litigation between the parties will be curtailed.  (179) P.L.R.
  6. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17, Order 2, Rule 2 - Respondents had taken the plea before the lower Appellate Court that the second suit filed by the plaintiff is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC because the petitioner could have challenged the decree and asked for rendition of accounts in the first suit as well - Respondents were very much aware of the pendency of the first suit by the petitioner in the year 1996 itself and could have easily taken the plea of Order 2 Rule 2 or Section 10 of the CPC at that time but the said plea has been taken as an afterthought at the stage of appeal which has been allowed erroneously by the lower Appellate Court on the ground that the respondents have acquired the knowledge of the pendency of the first suit only after the decision of the High Court. (179) P.L.R.
  7. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17, Order 23, Order 11 Rule 2 , Section 11 - Amendment of plaint - During pendency of the other suit the present suit was instituted - Thus clearly Order XXIII CPC is not applicable - So far as question of resjudicata under Section 11 CPC is concerned, it is also not applicable as earlier suit was not decided on merits; rather it was dismissed in default under Order IX Rule 8 CPC - Even provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC would not become applicable - Consequently, the amendment sought by the petitioner is neither helpful either to him or to the Court for complete and effective adjudication. (176) P.L.R.
  8. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17, Order 6 Rule 18, Section 148 - Amendment of plaint and decree - Plaint allowed to be amended - Not amended within time - Decree passed - Order 6 Rule 18 with a stipulation for setting out a time limit for carrying out amendment does not take away the power of the Court to extend the time - If there exists a power then the fact that the petitioner did not file an application for extension under Section 148 cannot be taken as material, since an application had indeed been filed but it was stated as an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 - Only question would be whether the discretion must be exercised at the stage beyond the trial of suit and after passing of  judgment - No prejudice could be, therefore, said to be caused and no new rights could be said to have been obtained by the plaintiff which was not adjudicated by the court - If it was brought through an amendment, I direct such amendment was required to be carried out in the plaint as well as in the decree and the delay in filing the application was required to be condoned to do substantial justice to the party who had obtained a favourable consideration in suit by full-fledged judicial reasoning. (173) P.L.R. 3
  9. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17, Order 7, Rule 14, 18(1) - Suit for specific performance of contract - There is no reference to the plaintiff-Company - However, name of the plaintiff-company appears under the signatures at the place where party no.2-buyer has been mentioned - Trial Court directed the plaintiff to produce the agreement and the matter was further adjourned - Said agreement has not been produced - Trial Court shall frame the preliminary issues specifically with regard to the maintainability of the suit as well as with regard to the privity of contract and any other legal issue which can be decided even by leading evidence, not the detailed evidence - The trial Court is directed to pass appropriate order on the preliminary issues in accordance with law and thereafter shall proceed further.  (174) P.L.R.
  10. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of counter claim without this amendment in the counter claim filed by the petitioner-defendants, the suit cannot be completely and effectively decided and thus the amendment is essential. (179) P.L.R.
  11. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Amendment would not relate back to the date of filing of the suit - But when the amendment is sought after expiry of three years, then amendment had to be taken into consideration from that date and it would not relate to filing of the suit - It is made clear that in case the petitioner is able to prove the alleged claim itself was beyond limitation, it shall be treated from the date of allowing the application not from filing of the suit.    (180) P.L.R.
  12. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Application filed at the initial stage and issues had not been framed - That story put in by the Advocate has been wrongly mentioned by the Advocate - When plaintiff has changed his Advocate in this case then he has come to know that there is a admission of cancelled agreement in the plaint and his counsel had advised the plaintiff that the suit is required to be amended - Such type of amendment should not be thrown/declined at initial stage particularly when there is a plausible explanation.  (182) P.L.R.
  13. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Cause of action to file this application became available to the plaintiff after filing of the written statement - Once the defendants had cancelled the agreement and forfeited the advance amount, the plaintiff in all fairness, could file application for amendment of plaint by seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell in dispute - No injustice has been caused to the defendants-petitioners by way of this amendment, as the  same has been allowed within limitation from the date of knowledge when the defendants had refused to execute the sale deed. (183) P.L.R.
  14. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Construction of two foot over bridges - During the pendency of the suit, the bridge was demolished, the plaint was amended and relief of mandatory injunction seeking alternative site was claimed - The amendment was allowed - When the second bridge was also demolished, the plaint was sought to be amended to incorporate the relief of mandatory injunction for providing alternative site for the same as well - Fact remains that suit already filed by the petitioners claiming relief of mandatory injunction for providing alternative site for demolition of one bridge was already pending and the agreement for construction of two bridges on BOT basis is common - When during the pendency of the suit, second bridge has also been demolished, there is nothing wrong in allowing the petitioners to amend the suit already pending for incorporating that relief as well as the agreement dealing with both the bridges is common.  (179) P.L.R.
  15. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of Plaint - Costs for permitting amendment of plaint were not imposed because defendants were ex parte. (173) P.L.R. 0
  16. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Court is competent to allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side - Further, the main purpose for allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation.  (183) P.L.R.
  17. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Defendants  were ex-parte in the trial Court - Their application to set aside ex-parte proceedings stands dismissed by the trial Court - At the time of passing of impugned order, defendants being ex-parte were not represented in the trial Court - Consequently, amendment application remained uncontested - Even otherwise, in the original plaint also, the plaintiff has practically claimed the relief of recovery of Rs. 10 lacs, besides other reliefs, but to avoid payment of ad valorem Court fee, the plaintiff styled the relief in the nature of mandatory injunction - Consequently, amendment of plaint has been rightly allowed by the trial Court. (173) P.L.R. 0
  18. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Due to inadvertence, in place of word `gher' word `khor' was typed in the plaint at certain places - Evidence led by the respondent also shows that the suit property is `gher' and not the  khor - Amendment is simply a rectification of certain typographical errors which were noticed at the fag end of the case - Amendment allowed - Order upheld.  (174) P.L.R.
  19. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - During the course of trial, the sale deed in question was produced on record and has been marked as an exhibit and the said evidence was adduced before the Court - A registered document and they being of the unimpeachable credibility - Even otherwise the sale deed is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the matter in controversy - Amendment allowed.  (183) P.L.R.
  20. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Filed an application for amendment of the plaint and in the meantime filed second application but the counsel has withdrawn his first application by making the statement - His application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been withdrawn and has not been decided on merit - Therefore, in no way, it can be held as a ground to dismiss the application and in my view it is not necessary to take the permission of the Court to withdraw that application.
  21. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Initial suit is for prohibitory and mandatory injunction - Respondents have referred to the notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894  and that compensation was paid to the landowner in the earlier litigation - Plaintiff his restricting his relief from 14 kanals 6 marlas to 2 Kanals 2 marlas - The claim has been restricted and therefore, it would be easier for the Court to deal with the controversy which is lesser in nature - Application allowed. (178) P.L.R. 
  22. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Is only for correction of typographical error i.e. figures - Otherwise also, it will not change the nature of the suit - That amendment is being made at fag end - Cannot be accepted as the amendment is only clarificatory in nature. (173) P.L.R.
  23. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - It is grossly improper and unjustified to continue the plaintiff to secure at least even a lesser relief as a co-owner, if he could not establish his exclusive ownership over the whole of the property on the basis of adverse possession - The denial of such an amendment to the Appellate Authority was unjustified.  (179) P.L.R.
  24. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Merely because the plaintiff is prosecuting his cause very slowly is no ground to reject the amendment sought for by the suitor - If other co-owners of the land with the plaintiff have not been impleaded as parties in this litigation also is no ground to reject the prayer of amendment of the plaint - Merely because the plaintiff had not deposited process fee thrice for service of defendant No.4 through publication, this amendment sought in the plaint could not have been rejected - The lower court was free to pass an order within the legal scope against the plaintiff for non compliance of orders of the court regarding summoning of defendant No. 4 - Even if the proposed amendment brings some change in the nature of the  suit that ground is also not available to the respondent. (176) P.L.R.
  25. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Parties to the lis are the members of the same  family - Amendment sought by the plaintiffs is not going to change the nature of the suit because the suit has already been filed for declaration challenging the validity of the gift deed set up by defendant No.1 and now the amendment is being sought to challenge the Will which is again set up by defendant No.1 of the same person who alleged to have gifted her share to him - In case the petitioners are allowed to challenge the Will also in the present suit, it will definitely bring an end to all the controversies in the family of the petitioners and defendant No.1.  (179) P.L.R.
  26. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure - The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs - Howsoever negligent or careless may have been the first omission and howsoever late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. (173) P.L.R.
  27. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Petitioner has filed the civil suit for declaration on the basis that he is owner of the property - The proposed amendment is to establish the fact that he is owner of the property and for that purpose he wants to produce copy of "Sanad" - The nature of document is such that the said document is part of official record and cannot be said to be forged or fabricated document - Moreso, the other party shall have a right to rebut the case of the petitioner and even to rebut the evidence yet to be adduced by the petitioner.   (182) P.L.R.
  28. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Plaintiff could have and should have filed suit for specific performance and not suit for permanent injunction - Plea having received ill-advice from her counsel, she could not file suit for specific performance rather filed the suit for permanent injunction - Amendment sought for in the present case is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy and the trial Court should have allowed the prayer for amendment.(181) P.L.R.
  29. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Plaintiff could have and should have filed suit for specific performance and not suit for permanent injunction - Seeking amendment of plaint is on the point that because of ill-advice from her previous counsel the suit for specific performance could not be filed and only suit for permanent injunction was to be filed - It is settled proposition of law that law of procedure is meant for advancement of justice and not to create obstacles for advancement of justice - Proposed amendment - Allowed.   Held, that even after the commencement of a trial, the power of the Court to amend the pleadings, subsists, but the Court must consider the facts that the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy and if the applicant satisfies the Court that despite the exercise of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.   (182) P.L.R.
  30. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Plaintiffs was to add that house in dispute as ancestral coparcenary property - In no way it can be held that this plea was not within the knowledge of the plaintiffs nor it could be taken with due diligence - If such type of amendment is allowed, then there will be no end for the parties to seek amendment by the change of counsel.
  31. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Suit for permanent injunction - Has filed the original suit for seeking injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit property - But, it was revealed in the written statement that the defendant No.1 has executed the sale deeds in favour of defendant - If the plaintiff is compelled to assail the validity of the aforesaid sale deeds by filing the separate suit, it will unnecessary cause multiplicity of litigation. (183) P.L.R.
  32. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - Suit for recovery and damages in term of the agreement - Amendment seeking relief of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell - By way of amendment, nature of the suit was sought to be changed to recover possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell - If an independent suit is filed on the date the application for amendment was filed, the same would have been clearly time-barred - Once that is so, the court below has committed grave error in permitting the respondent-plaintiff to amend the suit by permitting him to add the relief of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell, which was a time-barred claim.       (180) P.L.R.
  33. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - The very plea in the original plaint that the defendants had installed Idols and had raised construction in the suit land would depict that defendants were in possession of the suit land - The defendants have also alleged that they are in possession of the suit property - Consequently, the plaintiffs want to seek relief of possession of the suit land by amendment of plaint - Allowed. (173) P.L.R.
  34. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - There is a definite reference to the boundaries of the property, extent and the source of title - If the plaintiffs provide for further details regarding khasra number and seek identification through a plan brought as the basis for such amendment - Only take this to be facilitation for the court to grant or reject the plaintiffs' case with appropriate details - Not find any serious prejudice that could be caused by allowing for amendment and inviting the defendants to file amended statement or additional statement in the manner contemplated under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC only so far as the amended portion of the plaint is concerned. (180) P.L.R.
  35. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - To bring additional facts on record, which transpired after the filing of the suit and further for the issuance of mandatory injunction to the defendants to restore the property in its original position or permit the petitioner/plaintiff to do the needful at the cost of the defendants - Amendments, which are necessary for the purpose of determining real controversy between the parties, should be allowed - Change in the nature of relief claimed shall not be considered, as the change in the nature of suit - Power of amendment should be exercised in larger interest for doing complete justice between the parties. (180) P.L.R.
  36. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint - When amendment is sought on the basis of apparently wrong facts, the same was rightly declined - It is always open to the plaintiff to file an appropriate separate suit for mandatory injunction - However, the amendment was rightly declined.  (180) P.L.R.
  37. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of plaint at appellate stage - Relinquishment of a share can be sought even at the appellate stage - There will be no change in the nature of relief claimed nor the nature of suit will be changed - Only relief against defendant No.5 has been relinquished which in any manner does not affect the other defendants - In the larger interest of justice and to do full and complete justice between the parties, amendment can be allowed at any stage, particularly when there is no material change in the nature of suit. (173) P.L.R.
  38. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of the plaint - Only to add the relief with respect to the interest on the delayed payments - Certainly, the said amendment will not change the nature of the suit and will also not require any fresh evidence - Moreover, mere addition of the relief with respect to interest will not itself make the petitioner entitled for interest. (183) P.L.R.
  39. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of written statement - Amendment which cannot constitute any prejudice on issue of limitation or where an admission made is sought to be withdrawn shall always be permitted, unless there are special circumstances, which would disentitle the defendant - Defence has now stated that if he is a licencee it is irrevocable - I find this to be a purely legal contention which does not require any further evidence - No prejudice could be caused and the court ought to have allowed the application for amendment - A person who denies the title of the plaintiff cannot lose a right to set up a plea of irrevocable licence. (173) P.L.R.
  40. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of written statement - Application does not contain necessary particulars as to in which paragraph amendment has been sought to what effect - In the absence thereof, the application seeking amendment of the written statement could not be entertained.  (179) P.L.R.
  41. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of written statement - Mere fact that the application for amendment of the written statement has been moved by the petitioner at the belated stage i.e. after closing of the plaintiffs' evidence, is itself no ground to decline the same - The petitioner has sought to add a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit, which is a legal plea and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings - That during consolidation khasra member was changed - So only the description of the land is to be mentioned - Both these amendments will not at all change the nature of the case. (183) P.L.R.
  42. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of written statement - Plaintiff is an Advocate and the original written statement of defendants 2 and 3 were made by the plaintiff's associate counsel who share a common basta in district court complex at Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar and that is why the two defendants have had to engage a counsel to contest the suit - Defendants are illiterate - There is a likelihood of collusion between the plaintiff and the associate counsel and a trusting sister-in-law and her son then it prima facie appears they may have a valuable right to contest the suit on merits by disclaiming the offending written statement - Do not think that defendants 2 and 3 should be pinned down to their written statement and be taken forever to have admitted the claim of the plaintiff only to be done out of substantial suit property ex facie distributed unequally among co-sharers ruled by principles of natural succession, an inheritance confirmed by the plaintiff's claim based on a family settlement.    (177) P.L.R.
  43. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of written statement - Suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell - That defendants No.1 to 4 after the partition became dishonest and they have prepared the impugned agreement in collusion with the plaintiff in order to defeat the valuable rights of the defendants and as such the agreement is false, fictitious and bogus - Earlier the applicants had merely stated that the plaintiff was bound to prove the averments - All facts were in knowledge of the applicants - Plaintiff is to prove the agreement to sell by leading evidence as onus on this issue was on the  plaintiff - Application dismissed - Order upheld.       (177) P.L.R.
  44. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Amendment of written statement and counter claim was sought on the ground that applicant-defendants claimed to have become owner of the disputed property by sale deed - However later on it was discovered that recital in the sale deed with regard to the khasra numbers of the properties purchased had been wrongly mentioned - Therefore, during the pendency of the present suit, a supplementary sale deed executed - Giving correct numbers of the land - Court held that there is no direct controversy regarding ownership of the land in reference to khasra numbers because the suit and counter claim both are for decree of injunction - Boundaries described by the surrounding properties are more relevant than the description of the property by khasra number - Application dismissed - Order upheld.   (177) P.L.R.
  45. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - At the stage of deciding application for amendment of plaint, merits of the proposed amendment are not to be adjudicated upon - It would be seen after trial as to whether claim of the plaintiff, being introduced by amendment of plaint, is to be allowed or not - However, the said adjudication can be gone into only if proposed amendment of plaint is allowed - By allowing the amendment of plaint, the trial Court has not allowed rectification of the impugned agreement - On the contrary, trial Court has permitted the plaintiff to seek the relief of rectification of agreement but whether the said relief is to be granted or not, would be adjudicated upon after trial of the suit. (174) P.L.R.
  46. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Court allowed the application for converting relief of injunction as a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff could sustain the relief only if there are necessary pleadings setting out the details of agreement which had not been already set forth in his suit for injunction - Objection taken by the defendant at the earlier occasion when the petition for amendment was moved was only that the plaintiff had not set out the details of amendment and it was vague - This was surely not an appropriate defence under the circumstances but it must have been more specific - If that order allowing amendment was not set aside, it could not be objected later, in the manner done now. (174) P.L.R.
  47. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Details of fraud are always required to be set forth as required under Order 6 Rule 4 CPC and it cannot be left to be assumed - If a party so chooses to file his pleadings and believes that mere reference to lodging of FIR was sufficient without detailing the various acts of fraud - Find them as inadequate pleadings and cannot allow the defendant to bolster up his own pleadings by amendment later.  (179) P.L.R.
  48. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - It is settled legal position that it is open to a defendant to take a new ground of defence by amending its written statement - It is open to a defendant to take alternative pleas in his written statement but the same should not be destructive of each other - Delay in filing the application for amendment of written statement could not be a ground for rejection of the same when no serious prejudice is shown to have been caused to the appellant by allowing the amendment - We note here that the trial is yet to commence in the present suit. (176) P.L.R. (Del.)
  49. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Once the amendment has been allowed merely on technicalities viz. delay, non-payment of costs, the substantive rights of the petitioners cannot be curtailed - Costs  have already been paid - Only amended plaint is required to be placed on record - No  prejudice is likely to be caused to respondent no. 1 as at the most, the resultant delay in disposal of suit will effect the petitioners-plaintiffs. (174) P.L.R.
  50. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Parameters for allowing the amendment of plaint and written statement are totally different - The application seeking the amendment of reply to stay application had been immediately moved after filing of the written statement - It has been specifically mentioned that the mistake was due to inadvertence and oversight - Amendment, in my view, do not amount to withdrawal of the admission and will not change the nature of the defence.  (182) P.L.R.
  51. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Petitioner has already filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell - Only amendment sought in the plaint is to challenge the cancellation of the agreement to sell - In substance the relief remains the same - Challenge to cancellation of agreement to sell is ancillary with main relief - The amendment was necessitated in view of the law that such a challenge is mandatory. (179) P.L.R.
  52. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Proposed amendments allowed, simply plea that for the existing facts pleaded, the mother would be required in law to be holding the suit property as a trustee for the benefit of all the legal heirs, the father of the parties and that she would hold the property in a fiduciary capacity - Amendment allowed by the learned Single Judge has simply expanded upon the legal position concerning the facts already pleaded - No new ground of defence has been raised - The proposed amendment does not take away any right which could be said to have vested in the plaintiff - The order allowing the amendment does not decide any question which touches the merit of the controversy between the parties. (181) P.L.R. (Del.)
  53. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Rejection of plaint - Even if the plea that non-judicial stamp receipt cannot be counted towards court fee, after adjudication is found to be correct, rejection of the plaint even then would not be the consequence, because the non-applicant/respondent/plaintiff would be given time to make up deficiency in the Court fee. (176) P.L.R.
  54. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 (42 of 1963) S. 16-C - Ex-parte  judgment and decree etc. - Matter was remanded back to the trial court by giving two opportunities to the defendant to cross examine the witness - The suit was at the stage of cross-examination of the plaintiffs and the aforementioned application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint was filed - Since the suit is at the stage of the plaintiffs' evidence, no pre judice  would be caused to the defendant in case amendment sought to be incorporated - Plaintiffs have filed a fresh affidavit containing ingredients of Section 16-C of the Act - Amendment sought to be incorporated in the plaint is essential and necessary for adjudication of lis  between the parties. (182) P.L.R.
  55. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Though, the amendment application has been filed at a belated stage, but is for bringing on record the pleadings with respect to the earlier Wills -  Will not materially change the nature of the suit, rather apparently appears relevant to show the factum that the executant was having the intention to execute the Will in favour of the petitioners, so that property may devolve upon them - The veracity of these things will be taken care of by the trial Court. (173) P.L.R. 6
  56. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order  6, Rule 17 - Written Statement - Amendment of - After the conclusion of the plaintiffs evidence and when he attained his own turn to give evidence - Suit is for specific performance of an agreement to sell and the defence is that the document is a forgery and the plaintiff is trying to use the signature on the blank  papers - Was now trying to bring an explanation about the circumstances under which the forgery was perpetrated - A very serious prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff if such an amendment was to brought.  (179) P.L.R.