In Brief
Raj Kumar Bhatia sought to amend his written statement in a property dispute suit to elaborate on the ancestral and coparcenary nature of the property. The High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, set aside the Trial Court's order allowing this amendment, finding it lacked bona fide intent and was untenable on merits. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had improperly entered into merits when exercising Article 227 jurisdiction, which is limited to verifying jurisdictional compliance. Since the proposed amendment merely elaborated on defences already pleaded, it was not an admission withdrawal and caused no prejudice. The Court affirmed the Trial Court's order allowing the amendment and allowed the appeal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.