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

2006 Supreme(Jhk) 1328

M.Y.EQBAL
Ambica Devi @ Ambika Devi – Appellant
Versus
Laxmi Kant Soni – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Atanu Banerjee.
For the Respondent: None.

Order

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order by which the Court below allowed the amendment petition filed by the petitioner excepting the amendment sought to be made in para 3 of the plaint by introducing subparagraph 3(a).

2. Although the said petition was filed at a belated stage, but when the Court below allowed some part of the amendment, it should have allowed the proposed amendment also in order to give effective decision in the matter in controversy between the parties.

3. For the aforesaid reasons, this application is allowed and that part of the impugned order is set aside. Needless to say that the defendant-respondent shall file additional written statement and controvert the statement sought to be added by way of amendment before the Court below proceed with the hearing of the suit.


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