Skip to content


Ramsaran Ray and ors. Vs. Ramprasanna Mukerjee and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in50Ind.Cas.49
AppellantRamsaran Ray and ors.
RespondentRamprasanna Mukerjee and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order vi, rule 17 - plaint, amendment of--court, power of, to permit amendment of plaint long after institution of suit--santhal parganas settlement regulation (iii of 1872) section 5. - .....of these, the 4th is situated in the santhal parganas. the suit was instituted in the court of the subordinate judge of birbhum. at the hearing before him it was contended that by reason of the provisions of section 5 of the santhal parganas settlement regulation iii of 1872, the court of the subordinate judge of birbhum bad no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. to meet this objection on the 21st march 1917 the plaintiffs presented a petition by which they amended their plaint by withdrawing their claim against the 4th item of property.2. the first contention of the appellants before us then is that this amendment made 11 1/2 months after the institution of the suit should not have been permitted. we think, however, that this amendment was within the discretion of the subordinate judge,.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to recover money due on a mortgage-bond by the sale of the mortgaged properties. The mortgage covers items of property and of these, the 4th is situated in the Santhal Parganas. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum. At the hearing before him it was contended that by reason of the provisions of Section 5 of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation III of 1872, the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum bad no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. To meet this objection on the 21st March 1917 the plaintiffs presented a petition by which they amended their plaint by withdrawing their claim against the 4th item of property.

2. The first contention of the appellants before us then is that this amendment made 11 1/2 months after the institution of the suit should not have been permitted. We think, however, that this amendment was within the discretion of the Subordinate Judge, and we cannot say that by permitting the amendment to be made he has exercised his discretion improperly. On the plaint as thus amended no question of jurisdiction arises, and looking upon the plaint as one presented on the date the amendment was made, we think that the Subordinate Judge had then jurisdiction to proceed with the suit.

3. The second contention before us is that the bond was taken by the exercise of undue influence and also that it represents an unconscionable bargain. In support of the plea of undue influence two of the defendants ware examined. They, state in the coarse of their evidence that the bind was obtained under pressure, but they gave no details of the pressure that they say was exercised. We agree with the Subordinate Judge in holding that they failed to make out that plea. The facts and figures which might have gone to show that the transaction represented an unconscionable bargain have not been laid before us and we are unable, therefore, to give effect to that contention.

4. This appeal fails and must be dismissed. We make no order as to costs.


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