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

1989 Supreme(AP) 361

M.JAGANNADHA RAO
Adusumilli Venkateshwara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Chalasani Hymavathi – Respondent


M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE suit was originally instituted as one for permanent injunction and the plaintiff applied for temporary injunction pending suit and the same was rejected by the trial Court as well as in appeal by the Appellate Court. Subsequently, the plaintiff came forward with an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for conversion of the suit into one for possession. The said application has been allowed and it is against this order that the present revision has been preferred.

( 2 ) IT is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that conversion of the suit for permanent injunction into one for possession amounts to alteration of the nature of the suit and that the same should not have been permitted. Secondly, it is argued that the amendment application is filed beyond six months from the date on which, even according to the plaintiff, the defendants entered into possession subsequent to the suit.

( 3 ) IN my opinion, both the contentions are untenable. It has been held in a number of cases by various High Courts, including our High Court that a suit for injunction can be converted into a suit for po



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