Amendment application
chig
(Querist) 09 April 2013
This query is : Resolved
Amendment granted after 6 months of deliberation. Amendment allowed but could not be made within 14 days from the date of order. Extension granted on 18th day of the order. Opponent counsel raised review petition on the ground the order being illegal as after 14 days the order became flat and had no legal force. Please advise.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 09 April 2013
Where from you are getting 14 days time , there is no such restriction.
Adv k . mahesh
(Expert) 09 April 2013
no such bar is stipulated how come there is no legal validity
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 09 April 2013
agree with experts.
chig
(Querist) 10 April 2013
Dear Experts, please read Order 6 Rule 17 of
CPC, 2002 which says that any amendment when time is not specified in the order must be made within 14 days from the date of the order, unless the time is extended by the Court.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 10 April 2013
" unless the time is extended by the Court."
are the key words to take hold of.
What order and rule lays that if allowing amendment if court omits to fix time for incorporation of amendment then such time would be read 14 days,hence in case any amendment is not incorporated within 14 days or within time fixed by court(may be earlier or later than 14 days),the court does have inherent power to condone delay, whatever it is.
chig
(Querist) 11 April 2013
That's what i have argued out. Still however the opponent has given a review petition declaring the order bad in law and that the order had expired and on expired order no extension can be granted. i had given reply justifying the delay and the efforts made by me in appearing on each date. However, the order was passed when i could not appear for 10 days.
Now the court wants me to withdraw or remove some sentences from reply (exdh.37)as it may not speak well of the working of the family court. I had withdrawn myself from the case in the interest of justice and that the client may not suffer because of fighting between two counsels. The opponent wants to go to the HC but this reply may come in his way.
Again when another advocate put proxy it was objected that at this stage proxy cannot be appointed and that the advocate who has given the reply only should do hearing. I hav already argued not to correct my reply. at present I m involved in two other urgent matters out of town and cannot appear frequently in the Family Court.
