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

1954 Supreme(AP) 109

UMAMAHESWARAM
Pathikonda Gopala Rao – Appellant
Versus
Nagiri Pedda Kitamma – Respondent


UMAMAHESWARAM, J.

( 1 ) THE civil Revision Petition of filed as against the order of the District Munsif of Madanapalle refusing to permit the amendment of the plaint in O. S. No. 139 of 195 The suit was instituted by the plaintiff for the recoveryof moneys due from the defendant on dealings. The applicatioin for amendment was filed to permit him to sue as the manager of the joint family consisting of himself and his brother and also to implead his brother as the second plaintiff. The application was opposed by the defendant on the ground that by permitting the plaintiff to sue as the joint family manager, he will lose valuable plea of limitatioin. The District Munsif upheld the objection of thedefendant and dismissed the amendment application. This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against that order.

( 2 ) THE short point for consideration is as to whether by permitting the plaintff to sue as the manager of the joint family a new case is introduced or the cause of action is in any way altered. The language of Or. 6r. 17, Civil P. C. , is very wide. It enacts that:"the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and








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