{"id":219212,"date":"2019-09-07T10:30:01","date_gmt":"2019-09-07T05:00:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=219212"},"modified":"2019-09-11T12:45:47","modified_gmt":"2019-09-11T07:15:47","slug":"hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"HP HC | Amendments denied after 5 years of institution of suit as serious prejudice would have been caused; Held that the plaintiff was sleeping over his rights"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Himachal Pradesh High Court: <\/strong>Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. contemplated a petition filed under Article 227 of\u00a0 Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the order passed by Civil Judge of dismissing the application under Order 6 Rule 7 i.e. for \u2018Amendment of Pleadings\u2019 read with Section 151 of CPC.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Factual matrix of the case was that the plaintiff maintained a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, and sought to restrain the defendants from interfering in any manner, taking forcible possession, installed the electric pole and also restrained them from putting the electrical wires and changing the nature of suit land.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The defendants contested that the electric poles erected on the side of the road near the boundary of the land of the plaintiffs and in the presence of the parties. It was submitted that the electric pole, which had been installed by the Electricity Department will not cause any hindrance to the land of the plaintiffs and after the electricity wire was attached, any obstruction or hindrance was not caused to the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">During the pendency of suit, plaintiffs maintained an application, under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the plaint on the grounds that the defendants in connivance with each other forcibly erected poles and laid wires on it but, the said application was dismissed by the learned Civil Court.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Kulwant Chauhan, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amendments were required to be allowed in order to properly adjudicate the case it was necessitated for the reason that after the filing of the present suit, defendants had erected the electric pole on the suit land and now, it was required to be added. In support of his arguments, he had relied upon the judgment in <em>Estralla<\/em><em> Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd<\/em>., <a href=\"http:\/\/scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/CaXK38RJ\">(2001) 8 SCC 97<\/a> and contended that the application can be filed at any stage of the suit and the learned Courts are also required to allow the same, to meet the ends of justice. It was held that, \u201c<em>the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, a serious prejudice would be caused to the respondents in case, the application is allowed, at this stage, as the factum is with respect to the laying of electric lines under the Electricity Act and plaintiffs have waited for five years, even after having knowledge of erection of the electric pole in making the application for amendment<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">On the contrary, the counsel for the defendants Pawan Gautam and Suman Bhitmta, contested that petition was not maintainable, as the application was filed quite late before the learned Court below. He argued that as per the petitioner himself, electric pole erected in the year 2011 and now, the application had been filed, at the belated stage. He further argued that there was no case made out in favor of the petitioners to allow the present petition.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court found that the instant petition was maintained for an injunction and to restrain the defendants. It was further noted that the defendants had installed the pole and further an application for amendment was maintained in the year 2016. It was noted that though the application is filed after a long span of time but the question raised in the instant petition was different and the same cannot be allowed at the present stage of proceedings. It was held that \u201c<em>From the perusal of record which shows that the present suit has been maintained on 19.10.2011, at that time, defendants have started digging the pit for installation of electric poles and are threatening to install the same over the suit land. At that time, the averments of the plaintiff have been contested by defendants No.4 to 8 by filing written statement on 27.12.2011 by alleging that the electric poles were already erected in the month of May, 2011 i.e. on the road side near the boundary of the land of the plaintiff<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">If it was presumed that the electric poles were erected after the institution of the suit land in 2011, what prevented the plaintiff from moving an application for amendment of the plaint has not been mentioned by the applicant in his pleadings? It was settled law that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 have to be applied more liberally qua the written statement viz-a-viz plaint. Hence the petition was dismissed as the amendments were sought after 5 years and was sleeping over his rights.[Kishori Lal v. Darshan Kumar, <a href=\"http:\/\/scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/aj2042rT\"><b>2019 SCC OnLine HP 1401<\/b><\/a>, decided on 30-08-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. contemplated a petition filed under Article 227 of\u00a0 Constitution of India for quashing and <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":222107,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[25634,34399,36933,33536],"class_list":["post-219212","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-amendment-of-pleadings","tag-order-6-rule-17","tag-permanent-prohibitory-injunction","tag-section-151-cpc"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>HP HC | Amendments denied after 5 years of institution of suit as serious prejudice would have been caused; Held that the plaintiff was sleeping over his rights | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"HP HC | Amendments denied after 5 years of institution of suit as serious prejudice would have been caused; Held that the plaintiff was sleeping over his rights\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. contemplated a petition filed under Article 227 of\u00a0 Constitution of India for quashing and\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-09-07T05:00:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-09-11T07:15:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/\",\"name\":\"HP HC | Amendments denied after 5 years of institution of suit as serious prejudice would have been caused; Held that the plaintiff was sleeping over his rights | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-09-07T05:00:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-09-11T07:15:47+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"HP HC | Amendments denied after 5 years of institution of suit as serious prejudice would have been caused; Held that the plaintiff was sleeping over his rights\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"HP HC | Amendments denied after 5 years of institution of suit as serious prejudice would have been caused; Held that the plaintiff was sleeping over his rights | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"HP HC | Amendments denied after 5 years of institution of suit as serious prejudice would have been caused; Held that the plaintiff was sleeping over his rights","og_description":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. contemplated a petition filed under Article 227 of\u00a0 Constitution of India for quashing and","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2019-09-07T05:00:01+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-09-11T07:15:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/","name":"HP HC | Amendments denied after 5 years of institution of suit as serious prejudice would have been caused; Held that the plaintiff was sleeping over his rights | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg","datePublished":"2019-09-07T05:00:01+00:00","dateModified":"2019-09-11T07:15:47+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/07\/hp-hc-amendments-denied-after-5-years-of-institution-of-suit-as-serious-prejudice-would-have-been-caused-held-that-the-plaintiff-was-sleeping-over-his-rights\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"HP HC | Amendments denied after 5 years of institution of suit as serious prejudice would have been caused; Held that the plaintiff was sleeping over his rights"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":217706,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/05\/hp-hc-exemption-for-not-giving-prior-notice-under-s-80-cpc-granted-to-petitioner-as-the-matter-was-of-urgent-importance-prohibitory-injunction-granted\/","url_meta":{"origin":219212,"position":0},"title":"HP HC | Exemption for not giving prior notice under S. 80 CPC granted to petitioner as the matter was of urgent importance; prohibitory injunction granted","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 5, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: Sandeep Sharma, J. contemplated the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India where the order passed by the Civil Judge was challenged. The factual matrix of the case was that the application under Section 80(2) CPC was filed by the petitioner to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":215259,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/06\/01\/ori-hc-amendment-in-the-pleadings-cannot-be-refused-merely-because-of-some-mistake-negligence-inadvertence-or-even-infraction-of-rules-of-procedure\/","url_meta":{"origin":219212,"position":1},"title":"Ori HC | Amendment in the pleadings cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court:\u00a0Dr A.K. Rath, J. allowed the petition for amendment filed by\u00a0 Corporation Bank, represented through Chief Manager of its Bhubaneswar branch, and directed the trial court to incorporate necessary amendment in the plaint. In the present case, defendants had availed a loan from the bank and created an\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":254120,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/13\/explained-is-a-suit-for-injunction-maintainable-where-the-plaintiffs-title-is-not-in-dispute\/","url_meta":{"origin":219212,"position":2},"title":"Explained| Is a suit for injunction maintainable where the plaintiff\u2019s title is in dispute?","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"September 13, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai, JJ has, in two judgments, has held that where the plaintiff\u2019s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, a suit for injunction could be decided with reference to the finding on possession. \u201c\u2026 if the matter involves\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":203212,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/06\/court-free-to-invoke-provisions-of-order-8-rule-10-cpc-if-defendant-fails-to-file-ws-permanent-injunction-granted-against-use-of-trademark-cbn-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":219212,"position":3},"title":"Court free to invoke provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC if defendant fails to file WS; permanent injunction granted against use of trademark CBN NEWS","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 6, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Jayant Nath, J. decreed a suit for permanent injunction by invoking the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. The plaintiff was involved in broadcasting activities such as news reporting, producing TV shows and other media content in various parts of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":249187,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/03\/amendment-of-pleadings\/","url_meta":{"origin":219212,"position":4},"title":"Bom HC | In case of an application for amendment of pleadings, what would be the principal condition that Courts need to consider? Read on","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"June 3, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: Milind N. Jadhav, J., addressed a matter with regard to the amendment of pleadings. Petitioners have submitted that they are aggrieved with the Orders passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division on 17-11-2016. Factual Matrix Petitioners were the original defendants and respondents the legal heirs of the original\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":272953,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/03\/bar-under-order-2-rule-2-cpc-amendment-of-pleading-existing-plaint-inapplicable-applicable-to-subsequent-plainst-principles-stated-supreme-court-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":219212,"position":5},"title":"Bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC cannot apply to an amendment sought on an existing suit; Supreme Court lays down Principles for Amendment of Pleadings","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"September 3, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: On the question as to whether Order II Rule 2 CPC can be made applicable to an application for amendment of plaint, the bench of Aniruddha Bose and JB Pardiwala*, JJ has held that Order II Rule 2 of the CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-65-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-65-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-65-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-65-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-65-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219212","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=219212"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219212\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/222107"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}