INTRODUCTION:-

We all are well acquainted with the fact that “Drafting is an Art”, whereas “An art is the collective creation of Head, Heart and Hands of a human body”. The birth of an art takes place, when the feelings of heart influence the head and in accordance with the said influence, head directs the hands to draw the feelings and in consequences of the same, whatever is drawn by hands become the Art”. It is also a well settled principle of our life that “No body is perfect”. And hence, despite giving proper attention at length, some mistakes (either by ignorance and/or absence of facts or by not having proper knowledge regarding the concerned law) usually done by the lawyers/ Advocates in drafts of the contract, application and/or pleadings, during the course of drafting the same.

Before [1]institution of a suit we get ample opportunities to rectify the facts by adding, altering, removing and/or modifying the relevant paragraphs of the document, application, plaint and/or Written Statement but after institution of the Suit in any court of law, it is not possible for the parties to make any kind of modification in the said Plaint or Written Statement without permission of the concerned court of law.

The Process by which the concerned parties make any kind of addition, alteration, removal and/or modification in a document, Application, and/or pleading, is called as the process of Amendment.

Definition of the “Amendment”.

[2]the process of altering or amending a law or document (such as a constitution) by parliamentary or constitutional procedure.

[3]a change or changes made to the words of a text.

[4]An amendment is a formal or official change made to a law, contract, constitution, or other legal document. It is based on the verb to amend, which means to change for better. Amendments can add, remove, or update parts of these agreements. [5]An amendment is a section that is added to a law or rule in order to change it, or An amendment is a change that is made to a piece of writing.

[6]The modification of materials by the addition of supplemental information; the deletion of unnecessary, undesirable, or outdated information; or the correction of errors existing in the text.

[7]In law, an addition, deletion or change in a legal document.

After going through the aforesaid definitions, we can easily understand that Amendment is a process to add, alter, remove and/or modify certain facts in the law, document, contract, constitution and/or pleadings and the applications other than pleadings.

Kinds of Amendment.

There are three kind of the process of amendment.

1:- Amendment in Law/Constitution;

2:- Amendment in pleadings and

3:- Amendment in Applications other than pleadings.

4:- Amendment in Judgements, Orders and Decrees.

Here we shall only deal with the Amendment in Pleadings and Amendment in the Applications other than pleadings as well as  as the process of Amendment in Judgements, Orders and Decrees because the process of amendment in the Law or Constitution is concerned with legislature and we shall discuss on the same in other Article.

Amendment in Pleadings.

The provisions concerned with the Amendment of pleadings are prescribed under Order VI Rule XVII of the CPC 1908, but before dealing with the same, we shall have to understand the meaning of “Pleading”.   

The meaning of the pleading is given under Order VI Rule I of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and the same is reproduced herein under:-

Pleading.—“Pleading” shall mean plaint or written statement.

And hence, pleading shall not include any other Application/s except Plaint and Written Statement.

[8]Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC reads thus:

“17) Amendment of Pleadings – The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be 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.”

This rule declares that the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such a manner and on such terms as may be just. It also states that such amendments should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The proviso enacts that no application for amendment should be 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 for which amendment is sought before the commencement of the trial.

The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.

Order VI Rule 17 consist of two parts whereas the first part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the Court to order amendment of pleading. The second part is imperative (shall) and enjoins the Court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. In our view, since the cause of action arose during the pendency of the suit, proposed amendment ought to have been granted because the basic structure of the suit has not changed and that there was merely change in the nature of relief claimed. We fail to understand if it is permissible for the appellants to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in the new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit.

As discussed above, the real controversy test is the basic or cardinal test and it is the primary duty of the Court to decide whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. If it is, the amendment will be allowed; if it is not, the amendment will be refused. On the contrary, the learned Judges of the High Court without deciding whether such an amendment is necessary has expressed certain opinion and entered into a discussion on merits of the amendment. In cases like this, the Court should also take notice of subsequent events in order to shorten the litigation, to preserve and safeguard rights of both parties and to sub-serve the ends of justice. It is settled by catena of decisions of this Court that the rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties before the Court.

While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the Court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. This cardinal principle has not been followed by the High Court in the instant case.

What are the essential ingredients?

4.8 [9]AEML’s Amendments Applications have to be tested on the touchstone of the following salutary principles, qua amendment of pleadings, laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:-

(a) The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. Normally, amendments are to be allowed:-

(i) If the same is required to determine the real controversy between the parties; and

(ii) To avoid multiplicity of litigations.

(b) The amendment ought not be allowed if the:-

(i) Amendment application lacks bona-fide;

(ii) Proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; or introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case. In other words, if the amendment introduces a new cause of action;

(iii) The court should decline amendments if a fresh challenge on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application;

(iv) Allowing amendment would lead to travesty of justice as the same would lead to injustice/ prejudice to the other side, which cannot be compensated in monetary terms.

(c) Filing of an amendment application to repudiate an admission or inconsistent plea cannot be permitted as the same causes prejudice to the other side.

(d) The burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after commencement of the trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought earlier.

When there is a Delay of Considerable period.

[10]Reliance was placed on the said Judgment since delay of 11 years were condoned and amendment application was allowed. In the present case, during the pendency of the case the plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff and consequently amendment of plaint was sought. The court permitted the amendment since no trial had begun and permitting amendment would avoid multiplicity of suits. 

[11]The above provision 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 must be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The purpose and object of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly, in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs.

Catena of Judgments would say that even after commencement of trial, if the Court deems fit and necessary to permit amendment of the pleadings even after the commencement of trial, if it will not prejudice to the defendants and the relief sought is not barred by limitation.

[12]The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider belated plea for amending the plaint and whether prayer for amendment of plaint allowed will change the nature and character of the suit. In so far as, belated prayer for amendment is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held under:

“As noted herein earlier, the prayer for amendment was refused by the High Court on two grounds. So far as the first ground is concerned i.e., the prayer for amendment was a belated one, we are of the view that even if it was belated, then also, the question that needs to be decided is to see whether by allowing the amendment, the real controversy between the parties may be resolved. It is well settled that under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wide powers and unfettered discretion have been conferred on the Court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such a manner and on such terms as it appears to the Court just and proper. Even if, such an application for amendment of the plaint was filed belatedly, such belated amendment cannot be refused if it is found that for deciding the real controversy between the parties, it can be allowed on payment of costs. Therefore, in our view, mere delay and laches in making the application for amendment cannot be a ground to refuse the amendment”.

The factors must be taken in to consideration.

[13]“63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment:

(1) Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case;

(2) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide;

(3) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;

(4) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;

(5) Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case and

(6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.

These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.”

The above principles make it clear that Courts have ample power to allow the application for amendment of the plaint.

Amendment of the plaint stand on different footing:-

[14]wherein the court has held that by way of amendment, admission made in pleadings and particularly in the plaint cannot be sought to be omitted or got rid of. The Court further observed that a prayer for amendment of the plaint stand on different footing. The relevant observations of the Court are set out as under:

“19. ..a prayer for amendment of the plaint and a prayer for amendment of the written statement stand on different footings. The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore, addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable while adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable.

[15]If the amendment is allowed, it takes away jurisdiction of Court.

Merely the proposed amendment will takes away the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, the amendment should not be refused. What all the Court can do is to allow the amendment, direct the plaintiff to carry out the same in the plaint, correct or modify the court fee and valuation para of the plaint and then, if the suit value exceeds its pecuniary limits, it shall return the plaint to be presented at proper Court.

Or. 6 R. 18 : Failure to amend after order :

If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the time limit then within fourteen days from the date of order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended by the Court.

Liberal Approach to Order 6 Rule 18 is advised:

[16]For the inability to carry out such amendment within the time of 14 days or within the time prescribed by the Court, the plaintiff should not be deprived of the benefit of the amendment. The inconvenience caused to the defendant may be compensated by awarding suitable costs. It is said, that the procedure under Rule 18 of Order 6 should not be applied so rigorously and with hyper-technical 11 stress that it breaks the strings of substantial justice.

AMENDMENT IN OTHER APPLICATION/S:-

The provisions as prescribed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are only concerned with the process of amendment in pleadings (i.e. Plaint and Written Statement) but the question is arising in respect of the amendment in application/s other than the pleadings, as how the other Application/s can be amended by the concerned party, filed in a pending litigation?

The provisions prescribed under section 151 and section 153 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 are dealing with the said question.

Section 151:-

Saving of inherent powers of Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

In the case of [17] Debendranath v. Satya Bala Dass, the phrase “ends of justice” was explained and it was held that “ends of justice are solemn words and not mere polite expression in juristic methodology and justice is the pursuit and end of all law. But these words do not mean vague and indeterminate notions of justice according to statutes and laws of the land”.

[18]The inherent powers are considered necessary to do the right and undo the wrong in the course of administration of justice. [19]Inherent powers have roots in necessity and they are coextensive with necessity in order to do complete justice.

The scope and ambit of the exercise of powers under Sec 151 of CPC can be illustrated by a few cases as follows:-

1. [20]The court may recall its orders and correct mistakes;
2. Issuance of temporary injunctions when the case is not covered by order 39[21] or to set aside an ‘exparte’ order[22];
3. [23]Illegal orders or orders passed without jurisdiction can be set-aside;
4. [24]Subsequent events in the case can be take note of by the court;
5. [25]Court’s power to hold trial ‘in camera’ or prohibit publication of its proceedings;
6. [26]Court can expunge remarks made against a Judge and
7. [27]Court can restore the suit and rehear on merits and also to review its order;

A court has no power to do that which is prohibited by law or the Code, by purported exercise of its inherent powers. If the Code contains provisions dealing with a particular topic or aspect, and such provisions either expressly or by necessary implication exhaust the scope of the power of the court or the jurisdiction that may be exercised in relation to that matter, the inherent power cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers conferred by the Code or in a manner inconsistent with such provisions. In other words the court cannot make use of the special provisions of Section 151 of the Code, where the remedy or procedure is provided in the Code.

The inherent powers of the court being complementary to the powers specifically conferred, a court is free to exercise them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code when the matter is not covered by any specific provision in the Code and the exercise of those powers would not in any way be in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the Code or be against the intention of the legislature. While exercising the inherent power, the court will be doubly cautious, as there is no legislative guidance to deal with the procedural situation and the exercise of power depends upon the discretion and wisdom of the court, and in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Section 153 General power to amend.

The Court may at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit ; and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding.

We shall have to understand the phrase “any proceeding in a Suit”. In order to make ourselves understand, it is beneficial to go through the judgement passed in the case of Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia & Ors. Vs. Subodh Mody & Ors. 2008(6) Bom.C.R.519.

The word “any” means all except such a wide construction is limited by the subject matter and the context of the statute. “Any” is a word which excludes limitation or qualification. The expression “any” includes everything.

[28]The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “The word “proceeding” has not been defined in the Act. That term is a very comprehensive term and generally speaking means a prescribed course of action for enforcing a legal right. It is not a technical expression with a definite meaning attached to it, but one the ambit of whose meaning will be governed by the statute. It indicates a prescribed mode in which judicial business is conducted. The word “proceeding in Section 22 includes execution proceeding also. The execution is a stage in a legal proceeding. It is a stage in the judicial process. The Legislature has given ample power to Court in such litigation including the execution proceeding.

[29]The word “suit” has not been defined in the Code, but there can be little doubt that in the context the plain and grammatical meaning of the word would include the whole of the suit and not a part of the suit, so that giving the word “suit” its ordinary meaning it would be difficult to accept the argument that a part of the suit or an issue in a suit is intended to be covered by the said word in the material clause.

Section 153 of the Code is a part of procedural law. While considering its meaning one has to bear in mind that Section 153 of the Code is a part of procedural Law. [30]The full bench of the Hon’ble Court had occasion to consider the question as to the role of procedural law, wherein, the bench observed as under:

53. All the rules of procedure are the handmade of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of procedural law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the C.P.C. or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.

[31]Keeping the aforesaid principles of interpretation and the importance of procedural law in mind, one has to give wide meaning to the phrase “in any proceeding” so as to advance the cause of justice. All proceedings in the Court of Civil jurisdiction would fall within the scope of this phrase so as to lien in favour of Court having power under Section 151, 152 and 153 in favour of the Civil Court to correct errors in the proceeding so as to amend judgment and decree in order to justice between the parties. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be sustained on the touchstone of Section 152 and 153 read with Section 151 of the Code.

SECTION 153A OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908:-

[32]The Jurisdiction under Section 153A conferred on the trial Court, is available only when the appeal is dismissed by the appeal Court under Order 41 Rule 11 and not otherwise. [33]In Ram Bharosey Lal Vs. Rameshwar Dayal Chakkiwala , it was held that even if the decree merges in that of the Superior Court, Section 153A enables the trial Court or the Court of first instance to correct an error in the decree, without divesting the Superior Court of its jurisdiction to effect such correction. In the said case the question related to a merger of the trial Courts decree in that of the Superior Court on account of dismissal of the appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. Inasmuch as in the said case the appeal was dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC, which fact is distinguishable in the present case.

[34]In Smt. Chandra Kala Devt V. Central Bank of India, it was held that after a decree is appealed from and a final order is made by the Appellate Court, the lower Court ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter. The decree in effect becomes the decree of the Appellate Court and the Jurisdiction to amend the decree is in the Appellate Court, not in the Court below. The lower Court becomes functus officio. Mr. Mitra contended that this decision was rendered before Section 153A was inserted in CPC. But such a contention is out in place in view of the fact that Section 153A CPC applies in a case where the appeal is dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC, which is not a case in the present one, and as such the said decision still holds good in respect of the matters where appeal was not dismissed under [35]Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. By reason of such amendment the said ratio has become subject to the provisions of Section 153A.

SECTION 152 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, is reproduced herein as under:-

Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or Orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.

[36]Section 152 C.P.C. provides for correction of clerical arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, court or the tribunal becomes functus officio and thus being not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed. The correction contemplated are of correcting only accidental omission or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the Court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file appeal or review application. It implies that the Section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, how erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the courts below have been liberally construing and applying the province of Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC even after passing of effective order in the lis pending before them. No Court can under the cover of the aforesaid sections modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. 

OBJECT (Amendment):- [37]Main purpose of allowing amendment is to minimize litigation and plea that relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in light of facts and circumstances of each case.

CONCLUSION:-

[38]In our considered view, Order VI Rule 17 is one of the important provisions of the CPC, but we have no hesitation in also observing that this is one of the most misused provision of the Code for dragging the proceedings indefinitely, particularly in the Indian courts which are otherwise heavily overburdened with the pending cases. All Civil Courts ordinarily have a long list of cases, therefore, the Courts are compelled to grant long dates which causes delay in disposal of the cases. The applications for amendment lead to further delay in disposal of the cases. (Para 30) It may be pertinent to mention that with a view to avoid delay and to ensure expeditious disposal of suits, Rule 17 was deleted on the recommendation of Justice Malimath Committee by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 but because of public uproar, it was revived. Justice C.K. Thakker, an eminent former Judge of this Court in his book on Code of Civil Procedure (2005 Edition) incorporated this information while dealing with the object of amendment.

As a Lawyer, I, personally observed that 70% applications under Rule VI Order 17 are filed with the solitary objective of delaying the proceedings, whereas 10% application are filed because of apathetic approach in the first instance, and only 15% applications are concerned with the actual requirement of amendment. Out of these 100 applications, 90% applications are allowed and only 10% are rejected.

Therefore, for allowing amendment, it is not just costs, but the delays caused thereby, benefit of such delays, the additional costs which had to be incurred by the victim of the amendment. The Court must systematically evaluate the reasons, purpose and effect of the amendment and all these factors must be taken into consideration while awarding the costs.

Amendment must be allowed and carried out according to the law.

---

[1]Section 26 of CPC 1908- Institution of suits. — 1 Every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed. 2 In every plaint, facts shall be proved by affidavit.  3 Provided that such an affidavit shall be in the form and manner as prescribed under Order VI of rule 15A.)

[2] Merriam Webster.

[3] Cambridge Dictionary.

[4] Wikipedia Amendment.

[5] Collinsdictionary.com

[6] The Free Dictionary(Legal Dictionary)

[7] Global Negotiator. com

[8] Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors vs K.K. Modi & Ors on 22 March, 2006 Appeal (civil) 5350-5351 of 2002 Supreme Court.

[9] Reliance Infrastructure Limited ... vs The Maharashtra Electricity ... on 17 November, 2020 IA NO. 288 of 2020 IN IA NO. 2183 OF 2019 IN APPEAL NO. 201 of 2014.

[10] Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu & Anr.: (2002) 7 SCC 559 (Paras 8, 9, 11).

[11] State Of M.P vs Union Of India & Anr. on 17 August, 2011I.A. NO. 4 OF 2009 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 6  OF 2004 Supreme Court.

[12] Surender Kumar Sharma V. Makhan Singh (CIVIL APPEAL NO.6400 OF 2009[Arising out of SLP (C) 30468 of 2008]cited supra,

[13] Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others, (2009) 10 SCC 84, at para 63

[14]  Usha Balashaheb Swami & Others v. Kiran Appaso Swami & Others1(2007) 5 SCC 602. 

[15] Koka Venkata Ramanaiah Naidu vs. Karnam Venkata Ratnam – 2010 (6) ALT 133

[16] Salmona Villa Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Mary Fernandez and others – AIR 1997 Bom. 208

[17] AIR 1950 Cal 217 273

[18] State of UP Vs. Roshan Singh AIR 2008 SC P.1190

[19] Newab Ganj Sugar Mills Vs. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC P.1152.

[20] Keshardeo Vs. Radha Kisaan, AIR 1953 SC P.23.

[21] Mohanlal Chopra Vs. Seth Hiralal, aIR 1963 SCP.527.

[22] Martin Burn Ltd., Vs. R.N.Banerjee, AIR 1958 SC P.83.

[23] Mulraj Vs. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj, AIR1967 SC P.1386.

[24] Nair Service Society Ltd., Vs. K.C.Alexander, AIR 1968 SC P.1165.

[25] Naresh Sridhar Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC P.31.

[26] State of Assam Vs. Ranga Muhammed, AIR 1967 Sc P.907.

[27] Lachi Tiwari Vs. Director of Land Records, AIR 1984 SC P.41.

[28] Babu Lal Vs. M/s.Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and Ors. AIR 1982 SC 818,

[29] Mst. Gulab Bai vs Manphool Bai on 5 September, 1961 1962 AIR 214, 1962 SCR (3) 483

[30] Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia & Ors. Vs. Subodh Mody & Ors. 2008(6) Bom.C.R.519.

[31] Hansabai Shripati Bhosale v. Smt. Parubai Gopal Bhosale & Others.

[32] Rakesh Kumar And Others vs Ashok Kumar And Anr. on 29 May, 2015 MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1648 of 2015

[33] AIR 1984 All 167

[34] AIR 1959 Cal 153, 62 CWN 881

[35] provides that the appellate Court may dismiss the appeal without sending notice to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred and without serving notice on the respondent or his pleader; and Sub-clause (3) provides that the dismissal of an appeal under this rule shall be notified to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred. AIR 1953 Bom 122, (1952) 54 BOMLR 947, ILR 1953 Bom 309

[36] S.Perumal vs V.Banupriya on 4 January, 2016 C.R.P.(PD).No.1001 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

[37] Abdul Rehman vs. Mohd. Ruldu – (2012) 11 SCC 341.

[38] M/S. Revajeetu Builders & ... vs M/S. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors on 9 October, 2009CIVIL APPEAL NO.6921 OF 2009.(Arising out of SLP (c) No.1552 OF 2007)