Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ramesh Kumar Ambashta & Others v. Ram Kripal Teipathi & Others - CIVIL REVISION No. 302 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12913 (3 August 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 24

Civil Revision No. 302 of 2006

Ramesh Kumar Ambashta & another Vs. Ram Kripal Tripathi & others

Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists.

This revision challenges the order dated 01.05.2006 whereby the court below has allowed the prayer made by the plaintiffs-opposite parties under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.  to incorporate certain amendments in the pleadings.

Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the amendment, which has been permitted actually amounts to change the nature of the suit and as such, it should not have been allowed.

The amendment application (Annexure No. 4) goes to demonstrate that the additional declaratory relief is being added. By virtue of an amendment in the plaint to this effect that the plaintiffs are also entitled to recover their dues from the defendants out of the properties held by the defendants in their names, the learned counsel has tried to emphasis that a relief of this nature, if granted, would entail liability of payment to the plaintiffs also from out of the properties earned by the defendants and it does not only confine to the properties, which are allegedly acquired from out of funds of the society. From the pleadings in the plaint, it is clear that the opposite parties-plaintiffs have also alleged that from out of funds of the society, the defendants besides purchasing properties in their personal names, had also spent certain amount towards the purchase of Insurance Policies etc. in the names of their family members. Obviously, those expenditures were also not incurred for the members of the society and if the amount so spent is to be recovered from the defendants in the suit, naturally the personal property of those members may also be held liable for attachment and sale etc. for the purpose to recover all the amount so spent by the defendants. Therefore, in this view of the matter, if the court below has allowed the amendment application and has permitted addition of the aforesaid declaratory relief, it cannot be said that relief goes to change the nature of the suit to any extent. The amendment has been rightly allowed and the order cannot be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction of this court.

The revision is without force and is hereby dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.