{"id":254627,"date":"2021-09-23T18:00:24","date_gmt":"2021-09-23T12:30:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=254627"},"modified":"2021-09-23T17:59:08","modified_gmt":"2021-09-23T12:29:08","slug":"a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\/","title":{"rendered":"Ker HC | A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner; HC rejects application for amendment making inconsistent and alternative pleadings in written statement"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Kerala High Court: <\/strong>V.G.Arun, J., held that no amendment can be allowed in written statement where it seeks to change former admissions.<strong>\u00a0 <\/strong>The Bench stated,<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #333399;\">\u00a0\u201cEven the most liberal approach towards amendment of written statements will not justify the approval of such an application.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>Background<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The petitioner was the defendant in a suit filed for seeking to cancel two assignment deeds registered by the respondent in favour of the petitioner. After the petitioner filed his written statement, the respondent amended the plaint. Though the petitioner filed additional written statement, subsequent interlocutory application was filed by him seeking to amend the written statement.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Plaintiff opposed the application, contending that the amendment was totally misconceived and filed only for the purpose of protracting the suit. The Trial Court dismissed the amendment application, holding that the attempt of the petitioner was to withdraw the admissions in the written statement and to incorporate new contentions. The Trial Court also found the petitioner guilty of wanton negligence and callousness.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The petitioner assailed the findings of Trial Court and submitted that the purpose of amendment was to withdraw certain portions from the written statement and to incorporate identical averments with minor modifications and the amendment was only clarificatory in nature.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>Amendment in Question<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The amendment was sought with regard to change in percentage of share from 22.5% to 32.5% and payment in the name of the power of attorney of the defendant to payment to the defendant and the term &#8216;adjustment&#8217; was sought to be replaced with &#8216;payment&#8217;.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\"><strong>Opinion of the Court<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Noticeably, even in the lengthy explanations in the additional written statement, the petitioner had not mentioned about the contentions now sought to be incorporated. Therefore, differentiating <em>Pavithran<\/em>, wherein it had been held that \u201c<em>if an admission could be explained away or can be rescinded or superseded, there cannot be any prohibition against such admission being allowed to be taken away by amending the pleading\u201d, <\/em>the Bench stated that had the attempt of the petitioner been to only explain or clarify the admission the aforementioned decisions would have applied, on the contrary, the attempt was to withdraw the admissions and set forth an entirely new case.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Reliance was placed by the Court on <em>Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills (supra),<\/em> wherein the Supreme Court had held that the defendant cannot be permitted to change his case completely and substitute an entirely new case. The Bench remarked,<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #333399;\">\u201cThe amendments would, not only have the effect of the defendant making inconsistent and alternative pleadings, but also of completely displacing the admissions made in the written statement.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Though the petitioner had been permitted to file additional written statement, he waited till the case was listed for trial before filing the second amendment application. Moreover, there was no dispute to the fact that the amendment application was filed after the plaintiff had submitted his affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Therefore, the Bench stated that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have satisfied the Trial Court that he could not have filed the application earlier, in spite of due diligence.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Noticing that the affidavit in lieu of chief examination was filed prior to the filing of application for amendment and the Bench held that even if it was accepted that the application was filed before the date fixed for leading evidence, the interdiction in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 would apply.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The suit was included in the provisional list for the month of August, 2021 on the request of the plaintiff, since he was working abroad. The plaintiff had come down for the purpose of giving evidence and also submitted his affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The amendment application was filed thereafter, just prior to the date fixed for trial. Being so, the Bench was of the view that substantial loss was caused to the plaintiff by the conduct of the petitioner.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Accordingly, it was held that the Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application. [Muhammed Ashraf v. Fasalu Rahman, OP(C) No. 1374 of 2021, decided on 10-09-2021]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p>Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Appearance by: <\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the Petitioner: Advocate R. Sudhish and Advocate M. Manju<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">For the Respondent: Advocate K.M. Firoz and Advocate M. Shajna<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[25634,27414,47166,30796],"class_list":["post-254627","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-amendment-of-pleadings","tag-cpc","tag-inconsistent-pleading","tag-written-statement"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.4 (Yoast SEO v27.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<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 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner\" \/>\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\/2021\/09\/23\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ker HC | A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner; HC rejects application for amendment making inconsistent and alternative pleadings in written statement\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\/\" \/>\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=\"2021-09-23T12:30:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/KeralaHC-e1521442636157.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=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\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\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/23\\\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/23\\\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"Ker HC | A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner; HC rejects application for amendment making inconsistent and alternative pleadings in written statement\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-09-23T12:30:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/23\\\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":728,\"commentCount\":0,\"keywords\":[\"Amendment of pleadings\",\"CPC\",\"Inconsistent Pleading\",\"written statement\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/23\\\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/23\\\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/23\\\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\\\/\",\"name\":\"Ker HC | A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner; HC rejects application for amendment making inconsistent and alternative pleadings in written statement | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-09-23T12:30:24+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/23\\\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/23\\\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/09\\\/23\\\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ker HC | A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner; HC rejects application for amendment making inconsistent and alternative pleadings in written statement\"}]},{\"@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\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"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 | SCC Times","description":"A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner","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\/2021\/09\/23\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_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","og_description":"A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-09-23T12:30:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/KeralaHC-e1521442636157.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"Ker HC | A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner; HC rejects application for amendment making inconsistent and alternative pleadings in written statement","datePublished":"2021-09-23T12:30:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\/"},"wordCount":728,"commentCount":0,"keywords":["Amendment of pleadings","CPC","Inconsistent Pleading","written statement"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\/","name":"Ker HC | A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner; HC rejects application for amendment making inconsistent and alternative pleadings in written statement | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-09-23T12:30:24+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/a-case-of-wanton-negligence-and-callousness-of-petitioner\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ker HC | A case of wanton negligence and callousness of petitioner; HC rejects application for amendment making inconsistent and alternative pleadings in written statement"}]},{"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":225066,"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\/","url_meta":{"origin":254627,"position":0},"title":"Del HC | Permission to amend written statement after plaintiff&#8217;s evidence denied in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 3, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Pratibha 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)\u00a0seeking amendment in their written statement. The instant suit which was filed for specific performance in 2005 had\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":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":254627,"position":1},"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 &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":245147,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/06\/written-statement\/","url_meta":{"origin":254627,"position":2},"title":"Kar HC | Addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering defence or taking inconsistent pleas in written statement would not be objectionable, while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable","author":"Editor","date":"March 6, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: Krishna S. Dixit J. set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition. The facts of the case are such that the petitioner has filed the instant suit for declaration and injunction for assailing the order rejecting the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 Section 151\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":207724,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/07\/plea-for-additional-pleas-rejected-as-nothing-new-was-pleaded-in-written-statement\/","url_meta":{"origin":254627,"position":3},"title":"J&#038;K HC | Petition for additional pleas rejected as nothing new pleaded in written statement","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 7, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu and Kashmir High Court: A Bench of Sanjeev Kumar, J. dismissed a petition filed against the order of a Subordinate Civil Judge where the application of the petitioner seeking leave of the court to file additional pleas (replica) was cancelled. The facts of the case are that a suit\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":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":254627,"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 &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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":254627,"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 &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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254627","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\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=254627"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254627\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254627"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254627"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254627"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}