Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The suit was instituted in 1996 and was at the fag end of the trial. The Defendant’s cross-examination was ongoing and if the proposed amendment is allowed, it will change the nature and character of the suit.”
by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray†
The Court, not doubting the bona fides of the District Judge, maintained the legal position of Section 5 stating that revision order was a defective one without condoning the delay. There may be instances where the interest of justice may demand Court’s interference to avoid frustration of proceedings due to technicalities, however, in the present instance nothing restrained the District Judge from deciding Section 5 application.