PIRGONDA HONGONDA PATIL versus KALGONDA SHIDGONDA PATIL AND OTHERS

PIRGONDA HONGONDA PATIL versus KALGONDA SHIDGONDA PATIL AND OTHERS

The amendment was rightly allowed as it did not introduce a new case or alter the nature of the reliefs sought, the defendant was not taken by surprise, and substantial justice, not limitation, governs the exercise of discretion to permit amendment.

Parties
Appellant: Pirgonda Hongonda Patil; Respondents: Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 February 1957
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Plaint, Limitation, Obstruction in Execution, Declaratory Relief
Civil Procedure Amendment of Plaint Limitation Obstruction in Execution Declaratory Relief

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pirgonda Hongonda Patil

Appellant

Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendment of plaint introducing further and better particulars should be allowed when period of limitation has expired
  2. 2 Whether the amendment altered the nature of reliefs or introduced a new claim

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment was rightly allowed as it did not introduce a new case or alter the nature of the reliefs sought, the defendant was not taken by surprise, and substantial justice, not limitation, governs the exercise of discretion to permit amendment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.