{"id":225066,"date":"2020-02-03T09:00:29","date_gmt":"2020-02-03T03:30:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=225066"},"modified":"2020-02-05T12:55:15","modified_gmt":"2020-02-05T07:25:15","slug":"del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/03\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\/","title":{"rendered":"Del HC | Permission to amend written statement after plaintiff’s evidence denied in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court:\u00a0<\/strong>Pratibha M. Singh, J., dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had rejected the petitioner-defendant’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (amendment of pleadings)<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>seeking amendment in their written statement.<\/p>\n

The instant suit which was filed for specific performance in 2005 had a long and chequered history. The petitioner, in 2006, had filed an application for impleadment which was initially dismissed. However, later the Division Bench of the High Court allowed it and provided a limited right to the petitioner to file a written statement to participate in the proceedings. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 at the time when the plaintiff’s evidence had been commenced. This application was rejected by the trial court.<\/p>\n

Ratnesh Bansal, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, sought to urge that the amendment which was sought now had arisen because some questions were not permitted to be put to the plaintiff’s witness in cross-examination. Per contra, Rajiv Garg, Ashish Garg and L.S. Rana, Advocates representing the plaintiff, vehemently opposed the application for amendment.<\/p>\n

The High Court noted that initially the petitioner was given a restricted right to file a written statement but the written statement which was filed was beyond the liberty given by the Court. That led to considerable delay in the matter. The evidence by the plaintiff commenced in 2017 and concluded in 2018. Though the application for amendment was filed in 2017, it seemed to have been urged and pressed only after the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses has concluded.<\/p>\n

Notably, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 states:<\/p>\n

“Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”<\/em><\/p>\n

Perusing the record and considering the submissions made the parties, the High Court held that the written statement being sought to be amended now was not only hopelessly barred but was also beyond the liberty which was initially granted. The trial court, therefore, rightly dismissed the application for amendment. After the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence, such an amendment could not be permitted in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. [Naresh Kumar v. Meer Singh,\u00a02020 SCC OnLine Del 398<\/b><\/a>, decided on 28-01-2020]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court:\u00a0Pratibha M. Singh, J., dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had rejected the <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[25634,32201,30796],"class_list":["post-225066","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-amendment-of-pleadings","tag-order-6-rule-17-cpc","tag-written-statement"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC | Permission to amend written statement after plaintiff's evidence denied in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC | 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\/2020\/02\/03\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Del HC | Permission to amend written statement after plaintiff's evidence denied in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Pratibha M. Singh, J., dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had rejected the\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/03\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\/\" \/>\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=\"2020-02-03T03:30:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-02-05T07:25:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\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=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/02\\\/03\\\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/02\\\/03\\\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"headline\":\"Del HC | Permission to amend written statement after plaintiff’s evidence denied in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-02-03T03:30:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-02-05T07:25:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/02\\\/03\\\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":411,\"commentCount\":0,\"keywords\":[\"Amendment of pleadings\",\"Order 6 Rule 17 CPC\",\"written statement\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/02\\\/03\\\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/02\\\/03\\\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/02\\\/03\\\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\\\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC | Permission to amend written statement after plaintiff's evidence denied in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-02-03T03:30:29+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-02-05T07:25:15+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/02\\\/03\\\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/02\\\/03\\\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2020\\\/02\\\/03\\\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Del HC | Permission to amend written statement after plaintiff’s evidence denied in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC\"}]},{\"@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\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"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":"Del HC | Permission to amend written statement after plaintiff's evidence denied in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC | 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\/2020\/02\/03\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Del HC | Permission to amend written statement after plaintiff's evidence denied in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC","og_description":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Pratibha M. Singh, J., dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had rejected the","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/03\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-02-03T03:30:29+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-02-05T07:25:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/03\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/03\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\/"},"author":{"name":"Bhumika Indulia","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"headline":"Del HC | Permission to amend written statement after plaintiff’s evidence denied in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC","datePublished":"2020-02-03T03:30:29+00:00","dateModified":"2020-02-05T07:25:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/03\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\/"},"wordCount":411,"commentCount":0,"keywords":["Amendment of pleadings","Order 6 Rule 17 CPC","written statement"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/03\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/03\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/03\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\/","name":"Del HC | Permission to amend written statement after plaintiff's evidence denied in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-02-03T03:30:29+00:00","dateModified":"2020-02-05T07:25:15+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/03\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/03\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/03\/del-hc-permission-to-amend-written-statement-after-plaintiffs-evidence-denied-in-view-of-proviso-to-order-6-rule-17-cpc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Del HC | Permission to amend written statement after plaintiff’s evidence denied in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC"}]},{"@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\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","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":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":207526,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/02\/in-light-of-non-compliance-of-order-vii-rule-17-cpc-application-for-amendment-of-written-statement-rightly-rejected-bom-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":225066,"position":0},"title":"In light of non-compliance of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, application for amendment of written statement rightly rejected: Bom HC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 2, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: A Bench of M.S. Sonak, J. dismissed a petition and stated that there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the family court which rejected the application for amendment of petitioner\u2019s written statement. In the present case, the crux of the issue was the challenge\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","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":254627,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\/","url_meta":{"origin":225066,"position":1},"title":"Ker HC | A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner; HC rejects application for amendment making inconsistent and alternative pleadings in written statement","author":"Editor","date":"September 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court: V.G.Arun, J., held that no amendment can be allowed in written statement where it seeks to change former admissions.\u00a0 The Bench stated, \u00a0\u201cEven the most liberal approach towards amendment of written statements will not justify the approval of such an application.\u201d Background The petitioner was the defendant\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":212117,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/03\/16\/del-hc-plea-taken-by-defendant-in-written-statement-is-wholly-irrelevant-the-stage-of-deciding-or-7-r-11-cpc-application\/","url_meta":{"origin":225066,"position":2},"title":"Del HC | Plea taken by defendant in written statement is wholly irrelevant at the stage of deciding Or. 7 R. 11 CPC application","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 16, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Vinod Goel, J. dismissed a petition impugning the order passed by\u00a0Civil Judge whereby defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The plaintiff filed a recovery suit against the defendant (petitioner) on account of selling them wooden furniture. The suit was instituted in Delhi as the plaintiff was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":203048,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/04\/powers-under-order-viii-rule-9-cpc-to-be-exercised-by-the-courts-only-in-cases-of-set-off-counter-claim\/","url_meta":{"origin":225066,"position":3},"title":"Powers under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC to be exercised by the courts only in cases of set off\/counter claim","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 4, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Jharkhand High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar, J., partly allowed a writ petition filed against an order passed by the trial court whereby petitioner\u2019s application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC had been rejected by the trial court. The main issue that arose before the Court was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":323864,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/07\/can-pleadings-be-amended-ground-typographical-errors-or-change-of-counsel-allahabad-hc-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":225066,"position":4},"title":"Can pleadings be amended on the ground of typographical errors or change of counsel? Allahabad HC answers","author":"Editor","date":"June 7, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIn the light of law laid down by the Courts, change of counsel cannot be a ground to file amendment application bypassing the rigorous conditions of due diligence. In fact, to meet out any mistake, no advantage can be given to litigant due to change of counsel.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Allahabad High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Allahabad-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Allahabad-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Allahabad-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Allahabad-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":213661,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/raj-hc-no-material-change-reflected-in-the-pleadings-thus-petitioner-barred-to-contend-re-framing-of-issues\/","url_meta":{"origin":225066,"position":5},"title":"Raj HC | No material change reflected in the pleadings, thus petitioner barred to contend re framing of issues","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 18, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: The Bench of Dr Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J., dismissed the petition filed for mainly amendment of the issues framed in the pleadings at a later stage. The facts of the case were that the respondent-landlord had filed an application under Section 18(2) of the Rajasthan Rent Control\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225066","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=225066"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225066\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=225066"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=225066"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=225066"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}