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

2002 Supreme(Jhk) 1172

M.Y.EQBAL
Bikrama Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
Santosh Kumar Kashyap @ Santosh Kashyap – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Ram Pravesh Sharrna.

Order

It appears that inspite of personal service of notice upon the opposite parties they have not appeared so far.

2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 6.8.2002 passed in Title Suit No. 19 of 1995 whereby the trial court has refused to grant the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint.

3. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the aforementioned Title Suit for specific performance of contract of sale, It is stated that in paragraph 11 of the plaint that the plaintiff has missed to plead about the relevant dates of agreement entered into between the parties to sell the property. It is stated by the petitioner that in between the words "dates" and "when" the words and "lastly on 2.9.95" be added by the said amendment in para 11 of the plaint. In this way the plaintiff-petitioner wants to add the last date on which a request was made to the defendant for execution and registration of the sale deed. The court-below rejected the amendment application only on the ground that the alleged date of request sought to be inserted by the plaintiff-petitioner by way of amendment lies within 3 years from the date of agreement to sell. The learned court below proce


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