REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SUKUMAR CHATTERJEE Appellant

V/S

KIRAN CHANDRA MITTER Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BUDDHU LAL V. MEWA RAM [REFERRED TO]
KARIYA V. TIRUKKAIVELU [REFERRED TO]
DASSUMAL V. KUNDANMAL [REFERRED TO]
KALI V. TULSI [REFERRED TO]
WARYAM SINGH VS. AMARNATH [REFERRED TO]
SHANTILAL CHUNILAL SHAH VS. SHANTILAL FULCHAND SHAH [REFERRED TO]
RAMRICHPAL SINGH VS. DAYANAND SARUP MINOR [REFERRED TO]
PHUL KUMARI VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
S BARROW VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
FAQIR CHAND ANANT RAM VS. GOPI CHAND [REFERRED TO]
INDU BALA DASSI VS. LAKSHMI NARAYAN GANGULY [REFERRED TO]
RADHA MOHAN DATT, SILK MERCHANT VS. ABBAS ALI BISWAS [REFERRED TO]
LOKE NATH MUKHERJEE VS. ABANI NATH MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
BIR BABU VS. RAGHUBAR BABU [REFERRED TO]
GUPTA AND CO VS. KRIPA RAM BROTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SECY OF STATE VS. MMURUGESA MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
MT SURAJ PALI VS. ARIYA PRETINIDHI SABHA [REFERRED TO]
V M ABDUL RAHMAN VS. D K CASSIM AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
SARAJUBALA V. MOHINI [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RAHIM NASKAR VS. ABDUL JABBAR NASKAR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Section 115 of the C. P. Code against an order, refusing a prayer for amendment of the written statement, passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, 7th Bench, on September, 17, J9S3, a preliminary objection has been raised that revision under Section 115 does not lie from an order granting or refusing amendment of pleadings because by such order there is no 'case decided' within the meaning of the section.

(2.) In support of this objection, reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate for the Opposite Party on certain decisions of the Allahabad, Lahore and Sind High Courts (such as Dassuma v. Kundanmal, AIR 1946 Sind 36), where it has ueen held that an order made under Order 6, Rule 17 of the C. P. Code is trot revisable under Section 115. ;

(3.) The broad principle on which these decisions resl is that a 'case decided' in Section 115 means the decision of the claim in a suit, so that an amendment of a pleading, which does not dispose of the claim in the suit or the rights of the parties to the cause, cannot be brought under Section 115. In short the word 'case' did not include a part of a case/ [Buddhu Lal v. Mewa Ram, AIR 1921 All 1 (FB)). But as we shall see, this principle has not been adhered to rigidly even in the Allahabad High Court and some interlocutory orders have been held to be revisable under Section 115 even though they may not completely dispose of the suit (Ramrichpal Singh v. Dayaand Sarup.

Click here to view full judgment.

SUKUMAR CHATTERJEE Vs. KIRAN CHANDRA MITTER

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address