Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. VI r. 17

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------   --------- O. VI r. 17-Amendment can be allowed at appellate stage in a proper case.   There is no bar to allow an amendment in a proper case at the appellate stage. All rules of Court are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice, and it is, therefore, essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose, so that full power of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised. Though such power should not as a rule be exercised where its effect is to take away from a defendant a legal right which has accrued to him by lapse of time, yet there are cases where such considerations are outweighed by special circumstances of the case. In such a case amendment can rightly be allowed even at appellate stage.   Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung I L R 48 Cal. 832 (P-C) and Charan Das and others v. Amir Khan and others A I R 1921 P C 50 ref.   JUDGMENT   This appeal by defendant No. l arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs under section 87 (3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act for recovery of possession of the suit land. Plaintiffs' case was as follows   They and their brother proforma defendant No. 10 (Ramendra Nath Maitra) held 8 annas share of the suit holding recorded in C. S. Khatian No. 17 of Mouza Shibrampur, P. S. Nachol, under defendant No. 1, the Mutwalli of Lakshimpur Wakf Estate, hereinafter referred to as the landlord. Proforma defendants Nos, 11 and 12 held the remaining 8 annas share of the said holding. The landlord filed a notice under section 87 of the Bengal Tenancy Act in the office of the Collector of Rajshahi to the effect that on- the tenant abandoning their holding, he re entered the holding in Ashar, 1358 B. S., and thereafter settled the land with proforma defendants Nos. 2-9. The plaintiffs alleged that they did not abandon the holding, and hence the landlord was not entitled to re-enter the land.   The landlord contested the suit. His contention was that the plaintiffs and the proforma defendant No. 10 left Pakistan, abandoning the disputed holding, and without making arrange ments for…