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

2009 Supreme(Jhk) 1605

D.N.PATEL
Ambika Mahatain – Appellant
Versus
Kalpana Roy Choudhary – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners: M/s M.K. Dey, Arup Kumar Dey.
For the Respondents: M/s Binod Kumar Jha, S.K. Thakur.

Order

This writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by learned Munsif-l, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 86 of 2005, below an application preferred by the original plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be read with Section 151 thereof, whereby an amendment application, preferred by the original plaintiffs has been rejected and therefore, original plaintiffs have preferred this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that notice has already been served to respondent no. 1, whereas respondent nos 2 and 3 have not accepted the service of notice, issued by this Court and to that effect, an affidavit is filed before this Court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Title Suit No. 86 of 2005, was instituted by the petitioners, wherein, by mistake it was not mentioned that Mohan Mahto and others had presented a suit for declaration of title and recovery of Khas possession against Amendra Kumar Roy Choudhary over plot nos. 81B and 82B under Khata No.7 of an area of 15 Kathas before the Munsif-I, Dhanbad vide Title Suit No. 182 of 1960 and in the above






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