Whether a defendant in a suit for partition can be permitted to withdraw an admission made in the written statement after a pretty long period, is the issue arising for consideration in these cases.
IN Ram Niranjan Kajaria vs Sheo Prakash Kajaria & Ors on 18 September, 2015, Defendant No. 5 & !2, has come back after 15 years to amend their statement made in 1979. Though the court rejected their application, the said rejection was not because of the long delay but on merit and also went on to frame some important references on this issue of amendment & limitation which till now invariably appears to draw different conclusions from different courts.
The court referred to Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others[5], after referring to Gautam Sarup, where it has been stated :-
“63. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment:
(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case;
(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;
(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.
These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.”
IN Ram Niranjan Kajaria vs Sheo Prakash Kajaria & Ors on 18 September, 2015, Defendant No. 5 & !2, has come back after 15 years to amend their statement made in 1979. Though the court rejected their application, the said rejection was not because of the long delay but on merit and also went on to frame some important references on this issue of amendment & limitation which till now invariably appears to draw different conclusions from different courts.
The court referred to Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others[5], after referring to Gautam Sarup, where it has been stated :-
“63. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment:
(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case;
(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;
(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.
These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.”
Comments
Post a Comment