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

2017 Supreme(Cal) 275

SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI
Tapan Dey – Appellant
Versus
Arun Mullick – Respondent


Advocate Appeared:
Jahar Chakraborty, Siddheswar Chandra, Tapan Kr. Mahapatra, Advocates.

JUDGMENT :

1. This revisional application is directed against order no.66-A and 67 dated 14th July, 2016, passed by the learned 10th Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No.1253 of 2009 rejecting the petitioners’ application for amendment of plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The background fact on which the petitioners have filed an application for amendment of the plaint is as follows:

1. During pendency of the suit the defendant no.1, having wrongfully and illegally transferred and conveyed his undivided 1/3rd share in the suit premises to a stranger (now defendant no.2) the plaintiff filed an application under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for addition of the said transferee (defendant no.2) and such prayer of the plaintiff was allowed;

2. Consequent to such addition of defendant no.2, an application for amendment was also made by the plaintiff and vide order dated 14th June, 2011, such application for amendment was allowed;

3. The plaintiff amended the plaint and amended plaint was filed on 20th June, 2011. Subsequent to the said amendment, issues were framed on 1st September, 2014 and a date was fixed for hearing of





















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