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

2018 Supreme(AP) 277

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
Ankam Govindamma – Appellant
Versus
Syed Shafeeullah – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Y. Ashok Raj
For the Respondent: Sri. T. Sreedhar

ORDER:

This CRP is filed by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2018 in I.A.No.86 of 2018 in O.S.No.8 of 2012 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Deverakonda, dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the written statement by adding the plea of adverse possession.

2. Heard.

3. At the outset I find no illegality or perversity in the order impugned. The Trial Court dismissed the application on two main observations, firstly, that the petition is a belated one in the sense, the suit was filed on 04.01.2012, written statement was filed on 09.04.2012 and the I.A.No.86 of 2018 seeking amendment of written statement was filed on 17.02.2018 at the stage when the suit was posted for cross-examination of PW.1 and the petitioner has not shown any bonafides as she has not submitted satisfactory explanation for the delay of nearly six(6) years in filing the petition. Secondly, it was observed that originally in the written statement the defendant took the plea that she is the owner of the suit schedule property and now she wants to introduce an inconsistent plea of adverse possession which is impermissible.

4. I hav













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