Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Citedby 7 docs - [View All]
Stokely Van Camp Inc & Anr vs Heinz India Private Ltd. on 3 September, 2012
M/S. Dhodha House vs S.K. Maingi on 15 December, 2005
M/S. Perfect Automotive ... vs M/S. Premier Instruments & ... on 22 August, 2008
Astrazeneca Uk Ltd & Ors vs Orchid Chemicals & ... on 13 April, 2012
Hyundai Corporation vs Rajmal Ganna on 14 September, 2007

User Queries
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Premium Member services are free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Delhi High Court
Patel Field Marshal Industries ... vs P.M. Diesels Ltd. on 16 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 IVAD Delhi 992, 2001 (58) DRJ 501
Author: D Gupta
Bench: D Gupta, S Agarwal

JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.

1. This appeal is against the order passed on 7th July, 1999 by learned Single Judge in I.A. 5805/97. By the said order learned Single Judge while allowing defendants/appellants application seeking leave to amend the written statement observed that defendants/appellants cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the admissions already made by their conduct and by their pleadings at this stage. Without stating in the impugned order that what part of the proposed amendments would amount to withdrawing the admissions already made the application was disposed of directing that before the amended written statement is brought on record an advance copy shall be given to learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent to avoid any controversy in this regard.

2. We have been taken through the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking leave to amend written statement. The application runs into about 40 pages. The application as per the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents is not in consonance with the High Court Rules and Orders. Learned counsel for the appellant says that it is perfectly in order. We would not go into this aspect more particularly in absence of any observation by the Learned Single Judge that which part of the proposed amendment has been rejected by the impugned order or what part has not been allowed. The impugned order leaves everybody in dark and guessing. It would have been but appropriate for the learned Single Judge to have clearly specified with reference to paragraph numbers that which part of the proposed amendment have been allowed and which part of the proposed amendment have not been allowed so as to enable us at least to see whether there was any admission or whether the same was sought to be withdrawn or whether same could or could not have been permitted. This situation makes impugned order bad in law.

3. Consequently we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order with direction to the learned Single Judge to decide the application afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties. In case learned Single Judge will find that the application is not in proper from he will permit the appellant to file a fresh application with the proposed amendments and the proposed amended written statement.