Skip to main content

Burden on the person who seeks amendment after commencement of the trial to show that the amendment could not have been sought earlier

In T.V. Sasikala and Ors. Vs. C.P. Joseph, after commencement of the examination of witnesses in the suit, the Plaintiff filed an application (Exhibit P5) under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the plaint. The Defendants filed objection to application raising various contentions. The trial Court allowed application. The Defendants filed this appeal before the High Court of Kerala challenging the legality and propriety of the trial court order.

The High Court observed that the Trial Court has allowed the amendment desired by the Defendant in the appeal with a cryptic order where there is a need for speaking order with reasons and is liable to be set aside for that reason alone.

The High Court further observed that Order VI Rule 17 of the Code provides that, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The proviso to this rule states that, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, to some extent, curtails the absolute discretion of the court to allow amendment at any stage of the suit. If the application for amendment is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that inspite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. When the application for amendment filed by a party to the suit is after commencement of trial, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code.

Referring to various judgments, the High Court held that the trial in a suit commences on the date on which the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of a party or his witness is filed for the purpose of recording evidence. The bar under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code would be attracted to an application for amendment of pleadings filed after that date.

Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Revanna v. Anjanamma, AIR 2019 SC 940, the court observed that the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after commencement of the trial to show that inspite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought earlier.

As all the above mentioned issues had not been considered by the trial court, the High Court remanded the application to the trial court for fresh consideration and disposal.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more