Delhi HC: Woman's Right to a Shared Household Does Not Allow Indefinite Occupation of In-Laws' Home  ||  Delhi HC: Director Disputes in a Company Do Not Qualify as Genuine Hardship to Delay ITR Filing  ||  Delhi HC: ECI Cannot Resolve Internal Disputes of Unrecognised Parties; Civil Court Must Decide  ||  Bombay High Court: Senior Citizens Act Cannot be Misused to Summarily Evict a Son  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Service Tax Refund Can't Be Denied on Limitation When Payment Was Made During Probe  ||  Supreme Court: If Tribunal Ends Case For Unpaid Fees, Parties Must Seek Recall Before Using S.14(2)  ||  SC: Article 226 Writs Jurisdiction Cannot be Used to Challenge Economic or Fiscal Reforms  ||  Supreme Court: Hostile Witness Testimony Can't Be Discarded; Consistent Parts Remain Valid  ||  Supreme Court: GPF Nomination in Favour of a Parent Becomes Invalid Once the Employee Marries  ||  Supreme Court: Candidate Not Disqualified if Core Subject Studied Without Exact Degree Title    

PRK Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. Manojit Mitra and Ors. - (High Court of Calcutta) (17 Jun 2019)

Amendments which are mala fide in nature or amount to withdrawal of admissions or introduce entirely new causes of action ought not to be permitted

MANU/WB/1357/2019

Civil

The present revisional application is directed at the instance of the Defendant in a suit, primarily challenging a transfer deed, against an order, whereby an application filed by the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 for amendment of plaint was allowed. By virtue of the amendment, the Plaintiff sought to introduce pleadings to the effect that the signatures might have belonged to the Plaintiff but obtained under the influence of drugs/substance abuse, at the instance of the Defendants, in particular the Defendant No. 2.

A mere perusal of the plaint reveals that the plinth of the same was the categorical denial by the plaintiff of having signed or put his left thumb impression on the document-in-question. However, the premise of the amendment application is diametrically opposite to the said initial stand of the Plaintiff. What the Plaintiff now seeks to introduce is that the signatures might have been of the Plaintiff, but obtained under suspicious circumstances. The Plaintiff even seeks to delete the relevant paragraphs where the Plaintiff directly denied that, the signature and left thumb impression were of the Plaintiff, thereby withdrawing the admissions initially made in the plaint.

It is well-settled now that, Courts are stricter in allowing amendments of plaint than those of written statements. The attempt of the Plaintiff to alter the nature and character of the cause of action by way of amendment cannot be permitted, contrary to the lenient view in similar cases in respect of written statements.

In the present case, the Plaintiff had furnished certain particulars in his own way in his original pleadings, but sought to alter such particulars beyond recognition by amendment, by introducing an entirely new cause of action. It is well-settled by judicial decisions that amendments which are mala fide in nature and/or amount to withdrawal of admissions or introduce entirely new causes of action ought not to be permitted, particularly in respect of plaints. The Court below acted palpably without jurisdiction in allowing the amendment of the plaint. The impugned order is set aside and amended plaint directed to be taken off the record.

Tags : PLAINT   AMENDMENT   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved