Sikkim High Court: Meenakshi Madan Rai, J., while allowing the application made for the amendment of pleadings, held “The proposed amendment, in my considered opinion, in no manner causes any prejudice to the answering Respondent neither does it change the nature and character of the Petition or the reliefs sought.”
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment sought in the present application is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy and further placed reliance on the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd, (2001) 8 SCC 97. Objecting the same, Advocate General submitted that after the repatriation order was issued by the Government the Petitioner has joined his original Department, that is, Education Department, and consequently nothing further remains for adjudication in the matter. However, if this Court be inclined to allow the amendment it should not prejudice the rights of the Respondent to take up the grounds of waiver and acquiescence at the hearing. To substantiate his submission, Advocate General relied on P.S. Gopinathan v. State of Kerala, (2008) 7 SCC 70.
Taking into consideration the due submissions, the Court allowed the application seeking amendment, reiterating that unless the amendment sought affects the right vested with the opposite party, the same shall be allowed provided there was no opportunity of raising it at an earlier stage.[Santosh Dong v. State of Sikkim, 2020 SCC OnLine Sikk 205, decided on 10-12-2020]
Sakshi Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together
