Possible to amendment ?
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 12 February 2018
This query is : Open
I filled a case in Pune Family court u/s 12-1(a) of HMA 1955. in 2016... I have submitted my evidence affidavit to judge .My cross examination by opposite lawyer have not taken yet ..So is it possible now to amendment for Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act...in that affidavit....
If its possible pls let me know ....
my phone no.7798764393.
Vijay Raj Mahajan
(Expert) 13 February 2018
Yes possible the amendment to main petition can be done before the final order passed by the court, many case laws available in this regard, ask local lawyer to get those for his argument for the amendment application.
Vijay Raj Mahajan
(Expert) 13 February 2018
Yes possible the amendment to main petition can be done before the final order passed by the court, many case laws available in this regard, ask local lawyer to get those for his argument for the amendment application.
Vijay Raj Mahajan
(Expert) 13 February 2018
Yes possible the amendment to main petition can be done before the final order passed by the court, many case laws available in this regard, ask local lawyer to get those for his argument for the amendment application.
Ms.Usha Kapoor
(Expert) 13 February 2018
Under Order 6 rule 17 at any stage of suit or proceeding pleadings may be amended at court;'d discretion. So your evidence may be admitted at any stage even after trial is commenced provided you exercised due diligence you couldn't avoid amendment.
5.12. The Supreme Court, in para 9 of the Baldev Singh case (1), categorically observed as follows :
"(9)...... From a bare perusal of this provision, it is pellucid that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure consists of two parts. The first part is that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to amend his pleadings and the second part is that such amendment shall be made for the purpose of determining the real controversies raised between the parties. Therefore, in view of the provisions made under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, it cannot be doubted that wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such manner and on such terms as it appears to the court just and proper. While dealing with the prayer for amendment, it would also be necessary to keep in mind that the court shall allow amendment of pleadings if it finds that delay in disposal of suit can be avoided and that the suit can be disposed of expeditiously."
7.03. ACT 22 OF 2002 :
(i) Since Section 16 (2) (b) of Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act 2002 clearly says that the provisions of Rule 17 of Order 6 of the I Schedule has omitted by section 16 of the Amendment Act 1999, but which had been inserted by Section 7 of the Act 22 of 2002, the amended provision as contained in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 shall not apply in respect of any pleadings instituted before the commencement of the amended Code, vide 2005 (3) CTC 321 and 2006 (5) CTC 396.
(ii) In Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India19, at para 26, it is held as follows:
"Order 6 Rule 17
26. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code deals with amendment of pleadings. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. It has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being 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. The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial. There is no illegality in the provision
Ms.Usha Kapoor
(Expert) 13 February 2018
Under Order 6 rule 17 at any stage of suit or proceeding pleadings may be amended at court;'d discretion. So your evidence may be admitted at any stage even after trial is commenced provided you exercised due diligence you couldn't avoid amendment.
5.12. The Supreme Court, in para 9 of the Baldev Singh case (1), categorically observed as follows :
"(9)...... From a bare perusal of this provision, it is pellucid that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure consists of two parts. The first part is that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to amend his pleadings and the second part is that such amendment shall be made for the purpose of determining the real controversies raised between the parties. Therefore, in view of the provisions made under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, it cannot be doubted that wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such manner and on such terms as it appears to the court just and proper. While dealing with the prayer for amendment, it would also be necessary to keep in mind that the court shall allow amendment of pleadings if it finds that delay in disposal of suit can be avoided and that the suit can be disposed of expeditiously."
7.03. ACT 22 OF 2002 :
(i) Since Section 16 (2) (b) of Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act 2002 clearly says that the provisions of Rule 17 of Order 6 of the I Schedule has omitted by section 16 of the Amendment Act 1999, but which had been inserted by Section 7 of the Act 22 of 2002, the amended provision as contained in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 shall not apply in respect of any pleadings instituted before the commencement of the amended Code, vide 2005 (3) CTC 321 and 2006 (5) CTC 396.
(ii) In Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India19, at para 26, it is held as follows:
"Order 6 Rule 17
26. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code deals with amendment of pleadings. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. It has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being 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. The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial. There is no illegality in the provision
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 13 February 2018
thanks a lot ,for your guidance
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 14 February 2018
If you are interested to seek an obligation from experts you will have to disclose your identity as per rules of this platform, no reply for an "anonymous" author.
Otherwise contact and consult a local lawyer.
Kuummaar AS
(Expert) 14 February 2018
“ANONYMOUS” ने इस फोरम पे बहुत QUERIES फैंकी हुई हैं सावधान रहिये
