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

2022 Supreme(Kar) 1038

R. NATARAJ
Anthonyamma – Appellant
Versus
V. Kannan – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
H.V.Manjunatha, Advocate, Muniyappa, Advocate

JUDGMENT

1. Plaintiff in O.S.No.25630/2014 on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru has filed this writ petition challenging the correctness of the order dtd. 2/8/2022, by which, the trial Court rejected an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint.

2. The suit in O.S.No.25630/2014 was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The suit was contested by the defendant, based upon which, issues were framed and the case was set down for trial. At the stage of addressing arguments on the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint schedule to describe the boundaries properly. Said application was rejected by the trial Court as being belated and that the plaintiff was not diligent in filing the application. Being aggrieved by the said order, present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that amendment is only to describe the boundaries so as to give clarity to the pleadings. He submitted that defendant would not be prejudiced if the amendment is allowed. He further submits that the inconvenien

    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