The Apex Court, while setting aside High Court’s order, made an observation that a person could not be summoned and detained in absence of a crime registered against him as the same would be violative of natural principles of justice. In the instant case, the petitioner first approached Andhra Pradesh High Court and sought for relief against any arrest in absence of a notice under Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure. Earlier, his wife had lodged a complaint under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. Even after the High Court passed an order in his favor, he had been forcibly taken and detained by the police officers. In furtherance to this, he filed a contempt case alleging the non-compliance of High Court order. The police officer who arrested him had been held guilty of contempt and later sentenced to three months of imprisonment. However, the same had been set aside by the division bench on the ground that no crime had been registered. The bench also placed reliance on the directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar. The bench backed its order by observing that in absence of crime record, the question of arresting the writ petitioner would not arise. The Supreme Court, while hearing the appeal, observed that there had also been clear cut violation of directions issued in D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal. The bench reiterated the directions issued in the aforesaid cases and held that prima facie reason would be violation of basic principles instead of no crime being registered against the petition. The bench, however, modified the sentence awarded by the court from three months to 15 days of the responsible police officers. The post Summoning and detaining order should be backed by reasonable crime registered against a

Maitreyi Choalla, a student of Gujarat National Law University explains the nuances of Amendment of Pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 bstract In most cases, a country’s judicial system is designed to uphold the rule of law. Considering this principle, parties in a civil suit enjoyed unrestricted access to modify their pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Indian Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Concerns were brought to the Courts that such modifications or amendment of pleadings harmed the opposite party as well as slowed down the process of civil proceedings, resulting in piling up of cases. As a result, the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 had removed this clause, However, this move witnessed a negative reaction by both law professionals and general populace. Therefore, the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 had reinstated the same, albeit with a caveat. This study aims to explore these changes and assess the scope and judicial interpretation of amendment of pleadings in Civil procedure with a doctrinal legal research method by using primary sources like cases, statutes, legal commentary and reports. Keywords- Amendment of Pleadings, Civil Procedure Code 1908 Introduction The principle followed in Civil Procedural Law is that the Court procedures and rules are designed to achieve substantial justice. Order VI Rule 17 is an example of such procedural law that is designed to serve justice to the parties by giving them a chance to amend their pleadings where it appears to be necessary. The word ‘pleading’ in ‘amendment of pleadings’ can be understood by Order VI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code(CPC), 1908. It defines a Pleading broadly `as a plaint or a written statement.[1] While a Plaint is a formal statement filed by a Plaintiff to substantiate his claim, similarly a