Supreme Court Expresses Disappointment Over Inadequate Implementation of RPwD Act, 2016  ||  24,000 Teaching and Non-Teaching Jobs Invalidated by Calcutta High Court  ||  24,000 Teaching and Non-Teaching Jobs Invalidated by Calcutta High Court  ||  Del. HC: For Purposes of Article 19(6) of COI National Council for Teacher Education is ‘State’  ||  Karnataka High Court: Smoking Hookah as Addictive and Harmful as Smoking Cigarettes  ||  All. HC: Interest Can’t be Awarded by Labour Court In Proc. for Money Recovery from Empl. u/s 33C(2)  ||  All. HC: Rs. 5 Lakh Cost Imposed on CWC for Sending Minor Living With Mother to Children’s Home  ||  Ker. HC Issues Guidelines for DNA Testing of Children of Rape Victims Who Are Given in Adoption  ||  SC: Fourteen-Year-Old Rape Survivor Allowed to Terminate Twenty-Eight-Week Pregnancy  ||  SC: Government of Himachal Pradesh Directed to Review its Policies on Child Care Leaves    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved