In Brief
A mortgagor sought to redeem a mortgage property in a suit filed after an earlier tenancy-eviction suit was dismissed. The mortgagor applied to amend the plaint to clearly establish the mortgage redemption claim as an alternative remedy. The courts below permitted the amendment despite the delay and changed framing. The Supreme Court upheld this, holding that amendments should be liberally allowed when they do not prejudice the other party and enable just determination of real controversies. Critically, it clarified that a mortgagor's successive redemption suits are governed by distinct recurring causes of action (not barred by default dismissal rules) and subsist until the right of redemption is extinguished by law or decree.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.