Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved