Order VI Rule 17 - Suit for injunction restraining the respondent or his men from forcefully entering into the property, from taking possession of any portion, etc - During pendency , respondent demolished the southern boundary - Amendment sought for to incorporate a prayer for fixation of the boundary - Amendment should be allowed - Liberal approach should be the general rule - [T.C.Roy vs Sri Francis. 2001 (3) KLT 433 = 2001 (2) KLJ 491 . . A.Lekshmikutty (J)]
Amendment of plaint seeking change in the mode of consideration mentioned in the plaint cannot be allowed. [Sankaranarayanan vs Charumathi. 2001(1) KLT 325.K.A.Mohammed Shafi (J)]
Plaintiff could be permitted to amend the plaint and incorporate the averment regarding plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract under Sec. 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. [Rajaskeharan Nair vs. Raju.2003 (3) KLT.SN.24.P.17. K.S.Radhakrishnan (J)]
Principles
governing amendment of plaint Test
laid down Amendments not working out injustice to the other side and
necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy
between the parties to be allowed -
Amendments introducing a totally different case from the one pleaded and the
consequence of which would irretrievably prejudice the opposite-side not to
be allowed Chundayil ChandranVs N.Gopalan-C.R.P.
No.1202/99 dated 28.10.99 M.R.Hariharan Nair (J)
Application for amendment of plaint after the disposal of appeal - Inadvertent error in plaint - Correction can be allowed under Sec. 152 of the CPC. [ Vasudevan vs. Lakshmi. 2000 (3) KLT 704. M.R.Hariharan Nair (J)}
Order VII Rule 17 -Amendment of Plaint - Original Plaint the consideration alleged to have been paid on the over draft amount of Rs. 35,000/- was in cash whereas by amendment the respondent wanted to allege that the suit transaction is intended to regularise an earlier transaction between the petitioners and the respondent. Amendment will change the entire nature and character of the suit. Such amendment changing the very nature and character of the transaction . [ Sreedevi Vijayan vs State Bank of Travancore. 2001 (1) KLJ 611. . K.A.Mohammed Shafi (J)]
Order VIII Rule -6A - Counter-claim not raised in the written statement - Can be raised by making amendment in the written statement - Counter claim made by the defendant after filing the written statement cannot be said to be not maintainable as the cause of action for the counter-claim had arisen before the filing of the written statement . Amendment of written statement cannot be rejected on the ground that the delay or on the mere ground that the claim is barred by limitation on the date of application for amendment of pleadings. [M/s. Sabhari Syndicate vs The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. 2001 (1) KLT 646 . K.A.Mohammed Shafi (J)]