Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2000) 08 SC CK 0098

Pronoy Kumar Sanyal vs Beni Madhav Sanyal

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 16 August 2000 · Citation: (2000) 3 AWC 3207

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. P. Bharucha, J · D. P. Mohapatra, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 4553 of 2000

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 180 words

S.P. Bharucha and D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.—Leave granted.

2.

In the order under challenge, the High Court was considering the validity of an order passed by the trial court allowing the amendment of the plaint by the respondent before us. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner before us, submitted to the High Court that the question of limitation arose and the High Court said, "At this stage, question of limitation need not be gone into. At the time of disposal of the suit, such question may be raised by the Petitioner...". We are of the view that this is not the correct approach. The High Court should have considered at this stage whether the amendment of the plaint that was sought, was barred by time. It is, therefore, necessary to set aside the order under challenge and to restore to the High Court the civil revision application (C.O. No. 414 of 1999) to be heard and disposed of afresh, bearing in mind what we have said above.

3.

The civil appeal is allowed accordingly.

4.

No order as to costs.