High CourtsDivision Bench(1924) 11 MAD CK 0058

Sri Rajah Bommadevara Satyanarayana Vara Prasada Rao Bahadur Zamindar Garu vs Sankarahanapalli Venkata Tirumala Manavallaswamy

Madras High Court · Decided on 21 November 1924 · Citation: AIR 1925 Mad 794 : (1923) 18 LW 655 : (1925) 48 MLJ 489

HON’BLE JUDGES
Krishnan, J

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 140 words

Krishnan, J.—It is argued that the Lower Court acted without jurisdiction in allowing the amendment allowed by it. I think the amendment is

quite unobjectionable and falls clearly within the scope of Rule 17, Order 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. The observations in the case cited in Ma

Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung ILR (1921) Cal. 832 have to be read with the facts of that case. The amendment allowed here does not change

the nature of the suit at all. The words of Rule 17 give wide powers of amendment and we have the authority of the Privy Council itself in Ma

Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung ILR (1921) Cal. 832 cited for holding ""that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be

liberally exercised."" The petition fails and is dismissed with costs.