2.

It should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to

secure ends of justice

3. It should not be exercised against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other
provision of the code.

It is neither feasible nor practicable to lay down exhaustively as to on what ground the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should
be exercised. But some attempts have been made in that behalf in some of the decisions of
this Court as for example State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), Janata
Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others (1992 (4) SCC 305), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and
Another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Another (1995 (6) SCC 194), Indian Oil Corp. Vs.
NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006 (6) SCC 736).

2. It should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to

secure

secure ends of justice

3. It should not be exercised against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other
provision of the code.

It is neither feasible nor practicable to lay down exhaustively as to on what ground the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should
be exercised. But some attempts have been made in that behalf in some of the decisions of
this Court as for example State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), Janata
Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others (1992 (4) SCC 305), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and
Another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Another (1995 (6) SCC 194), Indian Oil Corp. Vs.
NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006 (6) SCC 736).

2. It should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to

secure ends of justicego, the parties to a suit had unfettered opportunities to amend the pleadings
under Rule 17, Order VI of the Civil Code Procedure. However, objections were raised and it was said
that such amendments not only delay the proceedings, but also cause prejudice to the other party.
Therefore, by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, this provision was deleted. But this
move led to widespread protests from the public as well as the legal community. This is why it was
reintroduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, but with a proviso. This paper
seeks to examine these developments and ago, the parties to a suit had unfettered opportunities to
amend the pleadings under Rule 17, Order VI of the Civil Code Procedure. However, objections were
raised and it was said that such amendments not only delay the proceedings, but also cause
prejudice to the other party. Therefore, by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, this
provision was deleted. But this move led to widespread protests from the public as well as the legal
community. This is why it was reintroduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002,
but with a proviso. This paper seeks to examine these developments and ago, the parties to a suit
had unfettered opportunities to amend the pleadings under Rule 17, Order VI of the Civil Code
Procedure. However, objections were raised and it was said that such amendments not only delay the
proceedings, but also cause prejudice to the other party. Therefore, by the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1999, this provision was deleted. But this move led to widespread protests from
the public as well as the legal community. This is why it was reintroduced by the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, but with a proviso. This paper seeks to examine these
developments and ago, the parties to a suit had unfettered opportunities to amend the pleadings
under Rule 17, Order VI of the Civil Code Procedure. However, objections were raised and it was said
that such amendments not only delay the proceedings, but also cause prejudice to the other party.
Therefore, by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, this provision was deleted. But this
move led to widespread protests from the public as well as the legal community. This is why it was
reintroduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, but with a proviso. This paper
seeks to examine these developments and ago, the parties to a suit had unfettered opportunities to
amend the pleadings under Rule 17, Order VI of the Civil Code Procedure. However, objections were
raised and it was said that such amendments not only delay the proceedings, but also cause
prejudice to the other party. Therefore, by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, this
provision was deleted. But this move led to widespread protests from the public as well as the legal
community. This is why it was reintroduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002,
but with a proviso. This paper seeks to examine these developments and ago, the parties to a suit
had unfettered opportunities to amend the pleadings under Rule 17, Order VI of the Civil Code
Procedure. However, objections were raised and it was said that such amendments not only delay the
proceedings, but also cause prejudice to the other party. Therefore, by the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1999, this provision was deleted. But this move led to widespread protests from
the public as well as the legal community. This is why it was reintroduced by the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, but with a proviso. This paper seeks to examine these
developments and ago, the parties to a suit had unfettered opportunities to amend the pleadings
under Rule 17, Order VI of the Civil Code Procedure. However, objections were raised and it was said
that such amendments not only delay the proceedings, but also cause prejudice to the other party.
Therefore, by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, this provision was deleted. But this
move led to widespread protests from the public as well as the legal community. This is why it was
reintroduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, but with a proviso. This paper
seeks to examine these developments and ago, the parties to a suit had unfettered opportunities to
amend the pleadings under Rule 17, Order VI of the Civil Code Procedure. However, objections were
raised and it was said that such amendments not only delay the proceedings, but also cause
prejudice to the other party. Therefore, by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, this
provision was deleted. But this move led to widespread protests from the public as well as the legal
community. This is why it was reintroduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002,
but with a proviso. This paper seeks to examine these developments and ago, the parties to a suit
had unfettered opportunities to amend the pleadings under Rule 17, Order VI of the Civil Code
Procedure. However, objections were raised and it was said that such amendments not only delay the
proceedings, but also cause prejudice to the other party. Therefore, by the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 1999, this provision was deleted. But this move led to widespread protests from
the public as well as the legal community. This is why it was reintroduced by the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, but with a proviso. This paper seeks to examine these
developments and ago, the parties to a suit had unfettered opportunities to amend the pleadings
under Rule 17, Order VI of the Civil Code Procedure. However, objections were raised and it was said
that such amendments not only delay the proceedings, but also cause prejudice to the other party.
Therefore, by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, this provision was deleted. But this
move led to widespread protests from the public as well as the legal community. This is why it was
reintroduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, but with a proviso. This paper
seeks to examine these developments and ago, the parties to a suit had unfettered opportunities to
amend the pleadings under Rule 17, Order VI of the Civil Code Procedure. However, objections were
raised and it was said that such amendments not only delay the proceedings, but also cause
prejudice to the other party. Therefore, by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, this
provision was deleted. But this move led to widespread protests from the public as well as the legal
community. This is why it was reintroduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002,
but with a proviso. This paper seeks to examine these developments and aof any Court or
otherwise to secure ends of justice

3. It should not be exercised against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other
provision of the code.

It is neither feasible nor practicable to lay down exhaustively as to on what ground the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should
be exercised. But some attempts have been made in that behalf in some of the decisions of
this Court as for example State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), Janata
Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others (1992 (4) SCC 305), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and
Another Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Another (1995 (6) SCC 194), Indian Oil Corp. Vs.
NEPC India Ltd. and Others (2006 (6) SCC 736).