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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more