A.R.LAKSHMANAN, ALTAMAS KABIR
Ajendraprasadji N. Pande – Appellant
Versus
Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. – Respondent
Judgment
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The above appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 09.03.2006 passed by the Gujarat High Court rejecting the Special Civil Application No. 1380 of 2006 discharging the Rule issued thereon and vacating interim relief and rejecting the Civil Application No. 2213 of 2006 for interim relief. By the said special civil application, the appellants challenged the order dated 24.01.2006 of the Second Additional Senior Judge, Nadiad rejecting their application exhibit 95 in Special Civil Suit No. 156 of 2002 for leave to amend their written statement on the ground that the appellants had not been able to show in context or the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC that before the commencement of the trial, the appellants should not have raised the matter in spite of due diligence.
Concise facts and events:
3. The respondents filed Civil Suit No. 144 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge at Bhavnagar against the present appellants, inter alia, seeking a declaration that in view of the Resolution passed in the meeting held on 11.05.2002, Defendant No.1 (appellant no.1 herein) having ceased to be the Acharya of the Vadtal Gaadi, is
Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. vs. Union of India
Mahalaxmi Rice Mills vs. State of U.P.
Relied on : B.K. Narayana Pillai vs. Parameswaran Pillai and Another
Gurdial Singh vs. Raj Kumar Aneja
Smt.Saiyada Mossarrat vs. Hindustan Steel Ltd., Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai (M.P.) and Ors.
Chairman, Canara Bank vs. M.S.Jaera
Referred to : Kailash vs. Nanhku and Others
Labour Commissioner vs. Burhanpur Tapti Mills
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.