SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 1689

R. C. LAHOTI, H. K. SEMA, G. P. MATHUR
Krishnan Vasudevan – Appellant
Versus
Shareef – Respondent


JUDGMENT :

R.C. Lahoti, CJI.

Leave granted.

2. After permitting an amendment in the plaint, the trial court refused to hear an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C. filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that such an application could not be entertained at that stage.

3. Order 1 Rule 8, C.P.C. does not prescribe any stage at which the application can be filed. In our opinion, the trial court ought to have heard and decided the application on its own merits without regard to the stage at which it was filed. The error committed by the trial court should have been corrected by the High Court.

4. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court dated 13.10.1997 and the order of the trial court dated 12.11.1996 are both set aside. The application under Order 1 Rule 8, C.P.C. shall be heard and decided on its own merits by the trial court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top