Application To Amend Admissions Can Be Entertained Even After Judgment Is Reserved Under Order XII Rule 6
Case: M/S BDR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. v. NARSINGH SHAH alias NARSINGH SAH and other connected matters
Coram: Justice Asha Menon
Case No: CM (M) 412/2020
Court Observation: “This Court concludes that there was nothing to preclude the learned Trial Court from hearing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, which was filed by the respondents/ defendants, even after the hearing on the application under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was concluded”
“It would also be useful to refer to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. This, again refers to a “stage of the proceedings” and not the hearing”, as in Order IX Rule 7 of CPC. Thus, an application for amendment may be filed by either party “at any stage of the proceedings.”
“The “hearing” may conclude once the “judgment” is reserved. But, the pronouncement of judgment is also a stage, just as on the filing of an appeal, that would also be a stage in the life of a suit.”
“The courts have repeatedly held that “judgments on admissions” should not be passed lightly and that even if there is an unequivocal admission by a party, judgment on admission may be declined, if the court is of the opinion that passing such a judgment would work injustice to the party making such an admission” “The petitions being devoid of merits are accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications. It is made clear that nothing contained in this order shall be a reflection on the merits of the application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC or under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, which the learned Trial Court shall dispose of in accordance with law,”
Download Judgement
[doc id=7778]
Previous Judgments
Different Retirement Age For AYUSH & Allopathic Doctors Not Justified: Supreme Court
Supreme Court: State Cannot Plead Financial Burden To Deny Salary For Legally Serving Doctors
Writ Jurisdiction Not For Deciding ‘Hotly Disputed Questions Of Facts’, Reiterates Supreme Court
