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

2021 Supreme(Raj) 2118

DINESH MEHTA
Gram Panchayat – Appellant
Versus
Kalulal – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. Rajesh Shah, for the Appellant.

ORDER

1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 01.09.2021, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sarada, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') has allowed the respondents' amendment application dated 08.07.2021 to be filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code').

2. The facts narrated briefly are, that the respondents -plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction on 26.03.2021.

3. On 08.07.2021, the respondents - plaintiffs filed an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code and stated that due to inadvertence, they have wrongly inscribed area of the land covered by the 'patta' in question as 900 square feet whereas the correct area is 1800 square feet.

4. The application was opposed by the present petitioners (defendants No.l & 2) by way of filing a reply on 13.08.2021, inter alia, stating that the error in question cannot be said to be a bonafide error/mistake.

5. The trial Court allowed the respondents' application vide its order dated 01.09.2021.

6. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that trial Court has committed an error of law in accepting respondents' amen

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