RAJESH KUMAR AGGARWAL AND ORS. versus K.K. MODI AND ORS.

RAJESH KUMAR AGGARWAL AND ORS. versus K.K. MODI AND ORS.

The proposed amendment did not change the basic structure of the suit but only the nature of the relief. Since the cause of action arose during the pendency of the suit and the amendment was necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties, the High Court erred in disallowing the amendment. The merits of the amendment should not have been considered at the stage of allowing the application.

Parties
Appellants: Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Ors.; Respondents: K.K. Modi and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Dismissing Application for Amendment of Plaint
Outcome
Appeals allowed; Division Bench order set aside.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Order VI Rule 17 CPC
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Order VI Rule 17 CPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Ors.

Appellants

K.K. Modi and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order Dismissing Application for Amendment of Plaint

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendment to the plaint should be allowed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC where the cause of action arose during pendency of the suit and relief sought was a change in the nature of relief, not the basic structure of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed amendment amounts to setting up a new and inconsistent case and whether such amendment was sought in good faith.

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendment did not change the basic structure of the suit but only the nature of the relief. Since the cause of action arose during the pendency of the suit and the amendment was necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties, the High Court erred in disallowing the amendment. The merits of the amendment should not have been considered at the stage of allowing the application.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; Division Bench order set aside.

Orders

  • Order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in FAO (OS) No. 35/2000 and CM No. 3 dated 27.08.2001 is set aside.
  • No order as to costs.