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

2011 Supreme(Ker) 326

K.T.SANKARAN
K. R Renjithmon – Appellant
Versus
P. J. Mary – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:V.Philip Mathew, Advocate.
For the Respondent: No Appearance.

JUDGMENT

1. The first respondent instituted a suit before the Sub Court, Ernakulam. She filed the suit as an indigent person. Indigent O.P.No.1 of 2010 was filed stating that she is not having sufficient resources to pay the court fee. A contention was put forward by the defendants that the application under Order XXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not filed in the proper form. I.A.No.8999 of 2010 was filed by the plaintiff to correct the mistake so as to make the application in the proper form. The court below allowed that application by the order dated 7.2.2011, which is under challenge in this Original Petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies only to pleadings. The Expression "pleadings" is defined under Order VI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as plaint or written statement. Therefore, the application is not maintainable. The court below noticed this contention and held that if Order VI Rule 17 cannot be applied, Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked. Learned counsel for the petitioner also raised certain points in respect of the contention of the petitioner



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