NDLI: Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Or. II r. 2 and Or. VI r. 17
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. II r. 2 and Or. VI r. 17 – Applicability of Or. II r. 2 to an amendment application – Held: Or.II r.2 operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview – The bar of Or. II r.2 applies only to the subsequent suits – Or. II r.2 cannot apply to an amendment which is sought on an existing suit. Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Suit for Specific Performance – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. II r.2, Or. VI r.17 – Applicability of – Respondents instituted suit seeking specific performance of the agreement and in the alternative, prayed for damages – High Court permitted the Respondents to amend the plaint, seeking to enhance the amount towards the alternative claim for damages – Correctness of – Held: There is no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the amendment application is liable to be rejected by applying the bar u/Or.II r.2 CPC – Or.II r.2 of CPC cannot apply to an amendment which is sought on an existing suit – Further, the amendment application is also not hit by the principle of constructive res judicata – The said principle has no application in the instant case, since there was no formal adjudication between the parties after full hearing – Litigation before this Court has come up at the stage when the courts below allowed the amendment of plaint for the purpose of enhancing the amount towards damages in the alternative to the main relief of specific performance of the contract – Also, it cannot be successfully urged that a suit for specific performance falling under the provisions of the 1963 Act would not be governed by the provisions of the CPC – It is, therefore, clear that to such a suit the provisions contained in Or.VI, r.17 of the CPC would apply and a plaintiff who has earlier failed to incorporate the reliefs for compensation or who has incorporated the reliefs for compensation but seeks amendment in the same, could seek the permission of the court to introduce these reliefs by way of amendment – Impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, affirming the order passed by the Single Judge allowing the amendment application not disturbed – Doctrine of constructive res judicata. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VI r. 17 – Amendment of pleadings – Held: All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side – This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Or.VI r.17 – In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs – Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed – Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation – Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer – Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VI r. 17 – Amendment of pleadings – When to be allowed and not to be allowed – Discussed. Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Proviso to s.21(5) and s.22(2) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VI r. 17 – Held: The two provisos deal with the question of permitting the plaintiff to amend his plaint – It is not, as if, in the absence of these two provisos, it is not permissible in law for the plaintiff to carry out an amendment in his pleading by introducing a relief for enhanced compensation – r.17 of Order VI does confer power on a Court to allow a party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just and allows all such amendments to be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.21 – Scope and ambit of – Discussed – Specific Relief Amendment Act, 2018. Words & Phrases: “shall”, in the latter part of Or.VI r.17 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VI r.17. “omits to sue” and “intentionally relinquish any portion of his claim” – Discussed – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.II r.2.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 896
Petitioner	Life Insurance Corporation Of India
Respondent	Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr.
SCR	[2022] 8 S.C.R. 1121
Judgement Date	2022-09-01
Case Number	5909

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Ramesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Ashutosh Chaturvedi Vs. Prano Devi @ Parani Devi & Ors.

South Konkan Distilleries & Anr. Vs. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & Ors.

M/s Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manohar Lal

Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ladha Ram & Co.

Smt. Bachahan Devi & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur & Anr.

Peethani Suryanarayana & Anr. Vs. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore & Ors.

M/s Frost International Limited Vs. M/s Milan Developers and Builders (p) Limited & Anr.

Raghavendra Swamy Mutt Vs. Uttaradi Mutt

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr.

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Ramesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Ashutosh Chaturvedi Vs. Prano Devi @ Parani Devi & Ors.

South Konkan Distilleries & Anr. Vs. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik & Ors.

M/s Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manohar Lal

Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ladha Ram & Co.

Smt. Bachahan Devi & Anr. Vs. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur & Anr.

Peethani Suryanarayana & Anr. Vs. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore & Ors.

M/s Frost International Limited Vs. M/s Milan Developers and Builders (p) Limited & Anr.

Raghavendra Swamy Mutt Vs. Uttaradi Mutt

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr.