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

2004 Supreme(Mad) 487

P.SATHASIVAM
T. Gunaseelan – Appellant
Versus
M. Thamilselvi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For The Petitioner:S. James, Advocate. For The Respondent:K.M. Venugopal, Advocate.

Judgment :-

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned District Munsif, Madurai Taluk dated 10.6.2002 made in I.A. No. 71 of 2002 in O.S. No.225 of 1999 in and by which the learned District Munsif, Madurai Taluk, dismissed the said petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking permission to amend the plaint as described in the said petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it is stated that pending suit, the defendant had forcibly dispossessed the petitioner/plaintiff from the suit property. Aggrieved by the act of the respondent/defendant, the petitioner has filed I.A. No.136 of 2000 to put the petitioner in possession of the property by Court of law. The said petition was allowed on 4.12.2000. It is also his claim that as per order in I.A. No.136 of 2000, the petitioner was put into possession of the suit property. Subsequent to that, the respondent again dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit property. On these averments, the petitioner has prayed to amend the plaint for the relief of recovery of possession.

4. The respond



















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