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

2011 Supreme(Pat) 2054

MUNGESHWAR SAHOO
Anup Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Narain Prasad – Respondent


ORDER :


1. I have heard learned senior counsel Mr. Raghib Ahasan on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. S.S. Dvivedi, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondents in admission matter.

2. This writ application is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

3. The plaintiffs petitioners have filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the ORDER :dated 11.5.2011 as contained in Annexure-1 passed by Sub Judge-4th Gopalganj in Title Suit No. 494 of 2006 whereby the learned court below rejected the amendment of the plaint.

4. The plaintiffs filed Title Suit No. 494 of 2006 claiming for partition of half share in the suit property. The defendants, 2nd set filed contesting written statement alleging that the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiffs and defendant 1st set never remained in possession of the suit property since the year 1911. These defendants perfected their title and they have made construction over the same.

5. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiffs filed amendment application seeking amendment in the plaint alleging that they have been dispossessed by the defendants from the suit land. The said amendment was allowed by th





























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