CHANDER KANTA BANSAL versus RAJINDER SINGH ANAND

CHANDER KANTA BANSAL versus RAJINDER SINGH ANAND

The application for amendment of written statement filed after commencement of trial and closing of evidence was not bona fide, as defendant failed to substantiate inordinate delay, and there was no mention of the alleged agreement in earlier pleadings or evidence; explanation offered was not acceptable, and the High Court's order rejecting amendment is upheld.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Chander Kanta Bansal; Respondent/plaintiff: Rajinder Singh Anand
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Delay and Laches, Right of Passage, Partition, Mandatory Injunction
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Delay and Laches Right of Passage Partition Mandatory Injunction

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chander Kanta Bansal

Appellant/defendant

Rajinder Singh Anand

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether application for amendment of written statement after commencement of trial is bona fide and sustainable
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'due diligence' under Order VI Rule 17 CPC

Ratio Decidendi

The application for amendment of written statement filed after commencement of trial and closing of evidence was not bona fide, as defendant failed to substantiate inordinate delay, and there was no mention of the alleged agreement in earlier pleadings or evidence; explanation offered was not acceptable, and the High Court's order rejecting amendment is upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court's order rejecting amendment application upheld
  • Trial Court to dispose of the suit uninfluenced by Supreme Court observations within three months