Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C for the amendment of written statement -if the amendment to the written statement is allowed, it would completely efface the admissions by pleading from the earliest opportunity in the litigation. The effort through amendment is to oust the jurisdiction of the Court. Such amendments cannot be allowed. - 2015 A.P. (12/2014) MSK LAW REPORTS 16

The application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C for the amendment of written statement is to add the following  averments:   Para 15) That the defendant obtained two and half mulgies in the year 2002 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,800/- for each mulgie (the total rent is Rs.4,500/-) from its original owner, the rent enhanced to Rs.2,700/- per month for each  mulgie, (the total rent  is Rs.6,750/-). For the convenient purpose the defendant paid lump sum.  As per the knowledge received by the defendant. According to the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent  & Eviction Control Act, 1960) the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is not maintainable as the Honble Court as no jurisdiction to entertain the case. Rent Control Act is only applicable to the plaintiff and defendant and the civil suit is not maintainable.         The said application was dismissed by the Court below. Hence, Civil Revision Petition.-

 On critically analyzing both  the English and
Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to
be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the
application for amendment:
       (1)      whether the amendment sought is imperative
for proper and effective
       @ page-SC 1890
       Adjudication of the case;
       (2)      whether the application for amendment is
bona fide or mala fide;
       (3)      the amendment should not cause such  
prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated
adequately in terms of money;
       (4)      refusing amendment would in fact lead to
injustice or lead to multiple litigation;
       (5)      whether the proposed amendment  
constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and
character of the case; and
       (6)      as a general rule, the court should decline
amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would
be barred by limitation on the date of application.  These
are some of the important factors which may be kept in
mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6
Rule 17.  These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

 As stated supra, the petitioner/defendant had admitted the
factum of tenancy and the plea that is sought to be introduced now
was not put forward at the earliest point of time either while
replying to the legal notice got issued by the respondents/plaintiffs
or while filing the written statement, at the first instance or at the
earliest when he had sought amendment of the written statement
vide I.A.No.710 of 2013.  As held by the Supreme Court in the
above referred judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
respondents/plaintiffs, if the amendment to the written statement
is allowed, it would completely efface the admissions by pleading
from the earliest opportunity in the litigation.  The effort through
amendment is to oust the jurisdiction of the Court.  Such
amendments cannot be allowed. 

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more