Skip to content


Puna Bewa and ors. Vs. Dinabandhu Mangaraj and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 107 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1985Ori130; 58(1984)CLT295
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 6, Rule 17
AppellantPuna Bewa and ors.
RespondentDinabandhu Mangaraj and anr.
Advocates:P.K. Mohanty, ;B. Patnaik and ;P.C. Patnaik, Advs.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot..........the object being ends of justice. embargo has been put by judicial decisions to prevent gross injustice to the other side and to nab manoeuvring parties and mala fide attempts. it is unnecessary to dilate under what circumstances an attempt to amend the pleadings would result in gross injustice to other side or when the attempt is mala fide. on the facts and in the circumstances the plaintiff wanted certain correction of the plot numbers and the area. without a positive stand on the part of the other side that the attempt was with a mala fide motive or the circumstances were such that incalculable harm or gross injustice would be caused to the defendants, the prayer should have been allowed. no doubt, the application was made three years after the institution of the suit. order 6,.....
Judgment:
ORDER

R.C. Patnaik, J.

1. This revision is directed against an order rejecting the petitioners' application for amendment of the plaint.

2. The original plaintiff died and thepetitioners were substituted by order dated 11-3-80. They put in an application for amendment of the plaint by way of correction of the description of property, that is by way of change of plot numbers and area. Certain alterations consequential to substitution were also prayed for.

3. The learned Munsif upheld the objection of the defendants-opposite parties and rejected the prayer. The sole ground was that the suit was of the year 1977 and the written statement was filed in 1978. The prayer for amendment was made two years thereafter.

4. The order is unsupportable. It has been repeatedly impressed upon the subordinate courts that Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is in widest terms, the object being ends of justice. Embargo has been put by judicial decisions to prevent gross injustice to the other side and to nab manoeuvring parties and mala fide attempts. It is unnecessary to dilate under what circumstances an attempt to amend the pleadings would result in gross injustice to other side or when the attempt is mala fide. On the facts and in the circumstances the plaintiff wanted certain correction of the plot numbers and the area. Without a positive stand on the part of the other side that the attempt was with a mala fide motive or the circumstances were such that incalculable harm or gross injustice would be caused to the defendants, the prayer should have been allowed. No doubt, the application was made three years after the institution of the suit. Order 6, Rule 17 says that amendment can be prayed for at any stage of the suit, even in appeal, second appeal and in course oi' further appeal to the Supreme Court. The approach should have been if by allowing the amendment the cause of justice was going to be subserved or there was going to be mayhem of justice. It simply does not occur to me how the simple prayer for correction of the erroneous description of the property without anything more could be said to alter the nature of the suit. In the context of Order 6 Rule 17, any change or alteration of the pleadings is not alteration of the nature of the suit. The learned Munsif fell into an error in his perception of the problem. I would, therefore, vacate the order and allow the prayer for amendment. Consequently the revision is allowed. As there is no appearance for the other side, there would be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //