GANESH PRASAD versus RAJESHWAR PRASAD AND ORS.

GANESH PRASAD versus RAJESHWAR PRASAD AND ORS.

The amendment to the plaint was properly allowed because the plaintiffs pleaded an alternative case (redemption of mortgage and right to possession upon redemption) that corresponds to the defendant’s own written statement and does not cause prejudice or introduce a new cause of action barred by Order IX Rule 9 CPC; Order IX Rule 9 only bars a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action dismissed for default, and a redemption suit presents a recurring cause of action until the right of redemption is extinguished, so the bar did not apply on the facts; the appeal was dismissed and the trial court directed to proceed to decide matters (including limitation) on evidence.

Parties
Appellant Defendant: Ganesh Prasad; Respondent Plaintiffs: Rajeshwar Prasad and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From High Court Order (civil Appeal No. 1699 of 2023)
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings (order VI Rule 17 Cpc), Effect of Dismissal for Default and Fresh Suit (order IX Rule 9 Cpc), Redemption of Mortgage (section 83 TP Act), Cause of Action, Limitation/article 61 a Limitation Act, 1963
Civil Procedure Property Law Transfer of Property Act Limitation Law Amendment of Pleadings (order VI Rule 17 Cpc) Effect of Dismissal for Default and Fresh Suit (order IX Rule 9 Cpc) Redemption of Mortgage (section 83 TP Act) Cause of Action +1 more

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ganesh Prasad

Appellant Defendant

Rajeshwar Prasad and Ors.

Respondent Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From High Court Order (civil Appeal No. 1699 of 2023)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
  2. 2 Whether Order IX Rule 9 CPC bars the later suit filed after earlier suit was dismissed for default
  3. 3 Whether a redemption suit presents a recurring cause of action until the right of redemption is extinguished

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to the plaint was properly allowed because the plaintiffs pleaded an alternative case (redemption of mortgage and right to possession upon redemption) that corresponds to the defendant’s own written statement and does not cause prejudice or introduce a new cause of action barred by Order IX Rule 9 CPC; Order IX Rule 9 only bars a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action dismissed for default, and a redemption suit presents a recurring cause of action until the right of redemption is extinguished, so the bar did not apply on the facts; the appeal was dismissed and the trial court directed to proceed to decide matters (including limitation) on evidence.