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

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 575

SUBHASH CHAND
Khageshwar Rana – Appellant
Versus
Sundri Devi – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ankitesh Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Mahadeo Thakur, Advocate

ORDER :

Subhash Chand, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 are present.

2. No one appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 13 despite service of notice to them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the plaintiff has instituted the suit for partition bearing Partition Suit No.21 of 2005 and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 30.01.2009 and the preliminary decree was directed to be drawn in regard to the plots of land as shown in the plaint. The decree was also prepared on the basis of the judgment and, during the final decree proceeding, the petitioner-plaintiff came to know that certain plots have wrongly been mentioned in the judgment and decree itself and one plot has wrongly been mentioned twice while the correct plot number and area is mentioned in the plaint, as such, the mistake was typographical, therefore, the petitioners have moved the amendment application before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division-VI, Hazaribag but the amendment application was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 29.01.2015, aggrieved from the order dated 29.01.2015, this writ petition has b

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