TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
Rubi Sood – Appellant
Versus
Major (Retd. )Shri Vijay Kumar Sood – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
This application has been preferred by the applicants/ respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sections 151 and 153 CPC or in the alternative under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC with the prayer that the applicantsplaintiffs be allowed to amend the plaint or in the alternative the plaintiffs be allowed to withdraw the suit with permission to file fresh on the same cause of action.
2. It is averred by the applicants-plaintiffs that they are owners of 1/4th undivided share in Shop No.72, Lower Bazar, Shimla standing built upon land comprised in Khasra No. 313, Bazar Ward, Barra Shimla and during the course of arguments in the case, it was found that due to an oversight and inadvertent mistake, history and background of the title of the plaintiffs was not been given in the plaint, though evidence was led in this behalf which is a technical defect in the pleadings of the plaintiffs. It is further averred that the plaintiffs are owners of 1/4th share in the shop in question through their predecessors-in-interest late Shri Kedar Nath Sood and Shri Sansar Chand Sood. During the pendency of the case, the original plaintiff No.2 and 3 have died and their legal repr
Mahendra Meheta and others v. Amaresh Sarkar
Nrisingh Prasad Paul v. Steel Products Ltd.
Bhagavatula Gopalakrishnamurthi v. Dhulipalla Sreedhara Rao AIR 1950 Mad 32: ( (1949) 2 MLJ 421)
Siddik Mahomed Shah v. Mt. Saran AIR 1930 PC 57 (1): (58 MLJ 7)
Debashis Singha Roy & Ors. vs. Tarapada Roy & Ors. 2001 (2) CCC 30 (Cal.)
K.S. Bhoopathy and others vs. Kokila and others (2000) 5 SCC 458
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.