Skip to content


Vadlamudi Venkatasubbiah and anr. Vs. Vadlamudi Seshachellum and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1912)22MLJ136
AppellantVadlamudi Venkatasubbiah and anr.
RespondentVadlamudi Seshachellum and anr.
Cases ReferredCharu Chunder Datt v. Sarut Chunder Singh
Excerpt:
- .....from the records that he did exercise his jurisdiction under order order vi, rule 17, and on that ground no interference is possible. it is then contended that he exercised that discretion with material irregularity and i am referred to numerous rulings in which orders have been set aside on revision on that ground, the most important of which are pramotha nath mitra v. rakhal das ally (1910) 11 c.l.j. 420. dwarkanath sen v. kisori lal gasain (1910) 11 c.l.j. 426, kisandas rupchand v. rachappa vithoba i.l.r. (1909) bom. 664. charu chunder datt v. sarut chunder singh (1910) 12 c.l.j. 537 and c. rev. p. no. 556 of 1910. it appears to me, however, that in cases of this sort each case must be treated on its merits. no doubt in this case the amendments might not have prejudiced respondents.....
Judgment:

1. The main question here is whether this court has jurisdiction to interfere under Section 115, C.P.C., with the District Judge's order refusing amendment of the plaint on the ground that it materially altered the character of the suit. It is evident from his order and from the records that he did exercise his jurisdiction under Order Order VI, Rule 17, and on that ground no interference is possible. It is then contended that he exercised that discretion with material irregularity and I am referred to numerous rulings in which orders have been set aside on revision on that ground, the most important of which are Pramotha Nath Mitra v. Rakhal Das Ally (1910) 11 C.L.J. 420. Dwarkanath Sen v. Kisori Lal Gasain (1910) 11 C.L.J. 426, Kisandas Rupchand v. Rachappa Vithoba I.L.R. (1909) Bom. 664. Charu Chunder Datt v. Sarut Chunder Singh (1910) 12 C.L.J. 537 and C. Rev. P. No. 556 of 1910. It appears to me, however, that in cases of this sort each case must be treated on its merits. No doubt in this case the amendments might not have prejudiced respondents to any material extent, but petitioner rushed into court while litigation was still pending and as the result of such litigation his suit, as framed, was not maintainable and had to be amended in such a way as to alter its nature to some extent. In fact, in this case, even if I were prepared to hold that the District Judge did exercise his discretion wrongly, I must find that he has not acted with such material irregularity as to justify interference under Section 115, C.P.C. I am strengthened in my view by the recent ruling in Jothy Mahalinga Iyer (1911) 10 M.L.T. 188. He exercised his jurisdiction and did so on the merits of the case. The mere fact that discretion may be erroneous is no ground for interference.

2. The petition is dismissed with costs.


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