NCLAT: IRP Has Authority to Take Possession of Assets Owned by Corporate Debtor  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Direct Forwarding a Copy of its Order to Relevant Statutory Authorities  ||  Delhi HC: Centre to Expedite Process of Accessibility Features in OTT platforms for PwDs  ||  Delhi HC: Once Worker Provides Testimony Under Oath ‘Burden of Proof’ Shifts on Employer  ||  SC: There Cannot be Discrimination in Matter of Payment of Pension to Retired Judges  ||  SC: India is Not a Dharamshala that Can Entertain Foreign Nationals from All Over  ||  SC: Can Quash Domestic Violence Act Complaints Under Section 482 of CrPC  ||  Supreme Court: Can’t Use Statement of One Accused against Another  ||  SC: Inclusion of Name in Draft NRC Cannot Annul Foreigners Tribunal’s Declaration as Non-Citizen  ||  Supreme Court: Minimum Practice of 3 Years Mandatory to Enter Judicial Service    

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