Case Comment On Ramesh Kumar Agarwal V. Rajmala EXPORTS (P) LTD., AIR 2012 SC 1887 6.1 Code of Civil Procedure & Law of Limitation

CASE COMMENT ON RAMESH KUMAR AGARWAL V.
RAJMALA
EXPORTS (P) LTD., AIR 2012 SC 1887
6.1 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE & LAW OF LIMITATION
Submitted by:
Vaishnavi Murkute
B.A LL. B (Hons) 3rd year 6th semester
UID NO: UG20-59
Submitted to:
Prof. Sanya Agrawal
(Assistant Professors of code of civil procedure & law of limitation)
Academic year: 2022-2023
MAHARASTHRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

Table of Contents
Sr. No. Particulars Page No.

1 Introduction 1
INTRODUCTION
The present case i.e., Ramesh Kumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports (P) Ltd. has summarily
examined the broad principles for amending the plaint. the Supreme Court held that in the
ordinary course of things, the Court must not refuse any bona fide, legitimate and honest and
necessary amendments and should never permit dishonest amendments. The purpose and
objective behind Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is to permit either of the parties to alter and
amend their pleadings in a manner which is just. The Court further stated that an amendment
cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it is not possible for the Court to adopt a hyper-
technical approach while deciding such prayers. The basic consideration while permitting an
amendment of pleadings is to avoid multiplicity of litigations.
Rule 17 of order 6 is very important. It governs how to amendment of pleadings. Order 6 of
the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 gives all necessary pieces of information needed in any
kind of pleading. The title tag for this order is “PLEADINGS GENERALLY”. The order is
very vital for every civil law practitioner. A good Lawyer how to write better pleadings. The
Oder 6 of The Civil Procedure Code 1908 can govern an advocate on how to write pleadings
and which information must include in and which should not.
The essential features of Order 6 rule 17 are: Particulars to be given where it is necessary for
the pleadings, Denial of a contract must be included, about any documents narrated in
pleadings must have the effects briefly as possible, no presumption of Law in pleadings,
every pleading must have to verify at foot of the pleading by the party or one of the parties,
the Court may Strike out pleading for unnecessary, scandalous, prejudice, or embarrass,
pleadings can be amended at any stage of the proceedings.
This research paper focuses on the facts of the case and issues. Further it elucidates on the
judgement and reasoning of the case. Lastly discussing the analysis of the case.
AIMS & OBJECTIVES
- To understand the facts of the case.
- To understand the issues before the court.
- To understand the judgment and reasoning of the case.
- To understand the analysis of the case.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
- What are the facts of the case?
- What are the issues before the court?
- What is the judgement and reasoning of the case?
- What is the analysis of the case?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In organizing the procedure for the appointed goals of the examination, doctrinal method of
the survey design is suggested, intensive writings survey will be used and the difficulties be
under consideration would be studied in an organized style. This doctrinal method adopted
for the script is descriptive as well as analytical. The researcher had made an attempt to
severely study the essential resources like books, newspapers, and e-sources, ideas of
research intellectuals, scholars, and other specialists who have handled this topic which will
be utilized as a genuine participation to research. E-resources have immensely assisted in
research for receiving the most significant and most recent information on the network which
has supported the researcher to explore the subject through diverse scope.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The property (bungalow) in question was constructed by late Ganpatirai Agarwal, father of
the appellant herein. Vipin Kumar Agarwal, Respondent 4 is the brother of the appellant. The
land on which the said bungalow is constructed is a leasehold property and belongs to
Hatkesh Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Society*). The
Society granted leasehold rights in respect of the said plot by indenture of lease dated 22-2-
1976.
2. The mother of the appellant passed away in 1991 and his father also passed away in 2002.
After the death of the parents, the appellant holds 50% share in the suit property and his
brother, Respondent 4 herein, also holds remaining 50% share in the suit property.
3. According to the appellant, in the year 2003, fox setting up a new business, he was in need
of substantial finance and for that purpose, he approached Respondent 1 Company through its
Director Mr Rajendra Kumar Aggarwal, who is his co-brother. Respondent 2 agreed to
finance the proposed projects on the condition that some documents are required to be
executed as security.
4. In 2006, the appellant signed an agreement with the Company promising to give his share
in the bungalow as a security for the loan. The said agreement was to be acted upon only
when the Company will give an advance loan of Rs 1,85,00,000 and further upon failure of
the appellant to repay the same within a period of two years from the date of disbursement of
the full amount of loan with interest @ 12% p.a. Even before getting the loan amount, the
appellant herein signed the agreement. Due to adverse market conditions, the appellant did
not go ahead with the proposed project and did not take any kind of financial assistance from
Respondent 1 Company and Respondent 2. co-brother' of the appellant.
5. According to Respondent 2, the appellant signed an agreement for sale on 2-2-2006 for
selling 50% of his undivided right, title and interest in the suit property. On 16-8-2007,
Respondent 1 Company filed a suit for specific performance being Suit No. 2374 of 2007
before the High Court of Bombay alleging that the appellant herein had agreed to sell his
50% share in the suit property to the Company for, a consideration of R$ 1,85,00,000 and
also alleged that the appellant ensured that Respondent 4, the brother of the 9 appellant would
sell his 50% undivided share in the property to the Company for R$ 3,00,00:000 and
represented him as an agent of Respondent 4. On 6-9-2007, Respondent 1 Company took out
Notice of Motion No. 3241 of 2007in which an ex-parte ad interim order was passed in their
favour.
6. The appellant herein sent a letter dated 10-9-2007 through his advocate to Respondents 1
and 2 for seeking details of the consideration of h R$ 1,85,00,000 and also for inspection of
various documents referred to and relied on them in the plaint as well as in the notice of
motion. After inspecting the documents, the appellant filed a reply and prayed for vacating of
the ex-parte as interim order dated 6-9-2007.
7. After hearing the parties, the High Court, by order dated 26411-2007, vacated the ex parte
ad interim order. On 20-8-2008, Respondent 4. Company took out Chamber Summons No.
1233 of 2008 in Suit No. 2374 of 2007 with a prayer to amend the plaint by impleading the
other parties. The appellant herein opposed the same. However, by order dated 21-11-2009,
the learned Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed the chamber Summons.
8. Against the order dated 21-11-2009, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the
Division Bench being Appeal No. 40 of 2009 in Chamber Summons No. 1233 of 2008 in Suit
No. 2374 of 2007. By the impugned order dated 8-6-20101, the Division Bench of the High
Court dismissed the appeal.
9. Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of
special leave before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
JUDGEMENT & REASONING
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE
CRITICISM (IF ANY)
CONCLUSION

Case Comment On Ramesh Kumar Agarwal V. Rajmala EXPORTS (P) LTD., AIR 2012 SC 1887 6.1 Code of Civil Procedure & Law of Limitation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Comment On Ramesh Kumar Agarwal V. Rajmala EXPORTS (P) LTD., AIR 2012 SC 1887 6.1 Code of Civil Procedure & Law of Limitation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE COMMENT ON RAMESH KUMAR AGARWAL V.

Academic year: 2022-2023

MAHARASTHRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

Sr. No. Particulars Page No.

You might also like