There are different occasions that gives
raise to amendment of pleadings, and are as follows
S.152 CPC :
Amendment of clerical error or arithmetic mistakes in judgments orders or
decrees.
S.153 CPC :
Amendment of proceedings in a suit, by the Court, whether suomoto or on
application of the parties, for the purpose of determining the real issues
between the parties.
S.153 A: Amendment
of clerical error or arithmetic mistakes in judgments of Appeal Suit.
Order 1 Rule 10 Sub Rule 2 CPC:
Adding or striking out parties
Order 6 Rule 16 CPC: (Compulsory
Amendment)
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC:
(Voluntary Amendment)
Compulsory Amendment O6 R 16
Court
may at any stage of the proceedings order to strike out or amend, any matter in
any pleading, which :-
-
may be unnecessary or vexatious or scandalous or frivolous in nature.
-
may tend to embarrass or prejudice or delay fair trail.
-
is abuse of process of Court.
Voluntary Amendment O6 R 16
Court
may at any stage of the pleadings allow either party to alter or amend their
pleadings in such a manner and in such terms as may be just.
All
such amendments are to be made to determine the real issues between the
parties.
No
application for amendment will be allowed after the trail has commenced,
unless, Court comes to conclusion that, inspite of due diligence, the party
couldn’t have raised the issue before the commencement of the trail.
0.6 R.18 Failure to amend after order: If the party fails to amend after obtaining
court grant, within the time limit specified in the order ( or 15 days), he
will not be allowed to amend it after the expiration of the said period, unless
Court grants leave to do so.
Guidelines for Amending Pleadings
(1) Applicant
must set out specifically in his application details of proposed amendment.
(2) Applicant
must also state the reasons for seeking to amend his pleadings; specially explaining
the delay, so that the opposition is not taken by surprise.
(3) Generally
amendment is allowed, unless its shown that such amendment would result in
prejudice to the opposing party.
(4) Party
seeking to amend the plaint shouldn’t act with malafide intentions.
(5) Appellate
Court may permit amendment at appellate stage to enable party to raise a new
plea.
Case Laws:
Gurudial Singh V Raj Kumar
Held, an amendment may be so devised as to deprive the opposite
party a valuable right accrued to him, by lapse of time etc., and that thus it
is necessary for the appellant to set out in his application, specifically what
he seeks to amend in his own pleadings.
Haridas V Godrej Rustom:
Held,
Court should be extremely liberal in granting prayer of amendment of pleadings,
unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side.
Suraj Parkash Bhasin V Raja Rani Bhasin 1981:
The following observations were made by Supreme Court,
(A)
Prayer for amendment can be allowed when there would not be total
transformation of nature of suit.
(B) Prayer
for amendment can be allowed if such amendment would avoid multiplicity of
suits.
(C) Amendment
is sought at a later stage, the Court while the same, should order heavy costs.
Ishwar Das V State of Madya Pradesh 1979
Supreme
Court held, there is no prohibition against Appellate Court permitting an
amendment at appellate stage merely because the necessary material is not
already before the Court.
Amendment of Pleadings Can Be Refused:
(1) If
defendant seeks to substitute a new case by way of amendment.
(2) Amendment
is not to decide the real question of controversy between the parties but only
technical in nature.
(3) If
effect of amendment would be take away a legal right acquired by bar of
limitation.
(4) Amendment
introduces a wholly inconsistent or new case and application is made at a very
later stage in the suit.
(5) Application
is not made in good faith.
Case laws
Radhika Devi V Bajrangi Singh
Held, where a party acquires a right
by bar of limitation, and the same is sought to be taken away by way of
amendment of pleadings, such amendment will be refused to be granted by the
Court.
Modi Weaving Mills V Ladha Ram 1977
Held, that the defendants by means of
amendment cannot substitute a new case and completely change the case made in
the written statement.
nice note
ReplyDeletegood
ReplyDeleteOutstanding work.
ReplyDeletevery bad work ... Usha Balashaheb Swami and others Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and others reported in (2007) 5 SCC 602 has held as under:
ReplyDelete19. It is equally well settled principle that a prayer for amendment of the plaint and a prayer for amendment of the written statement stand on different footings. The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable.
Very workable and clear conceptual and concise.... keep it on.
ReplyDeleteThis concise articles is very workable.....keep it on....
ReplyDeleteUseful
ReplyDeleteConcrete
ReplyDeletelaw students needs more note like this.
ReplyDelete