Skip to main content

Power to allow amendment of complaint/suit is wide, mere delay is not a ground for rejecting the amendment

In Shreya Milind Nimonkar Vs. Seema Shanbhag and Ors, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai had rejected the amendment to the plaint by the Appellant on the ground of delay.

The Appellant had earlier filed a complaint in the name of the OP-1 only as she was not aware of that the main surgeon in this medical negligence case is another person and was trying to amend the plaint so as to include the said surgeon as a party. However, the State Forum reject the plaint due to a delay of 3 years 2 months. 

On appeal the NCDRC said that the Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC enables the Court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings, if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision. 

Addition of the new proposed OP-2 Dr. Mahajan is absolutely necessary to adjudicate effectively and completely the matter in controversy between the parties. The amendment application filed by complainant was after 3 years, of filing of the complaint. The instant case is of alleged medical negligence. Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, the power to allow the amendment of complaint/suit is wide. The consumer fora should not adopt hyper technical approach while considering amendment application to avoid multiplicity of litigations. It should be borne in mind that, mere delay is not a ground for rejecting the amendment. The order passed by the State Commission is set aside. The appeal is allowed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more