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

1999 Supreme(Mad) 629

V.KANAGARAJ
Subramanian and three others – Appellant
Versus
Jayaraman – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr.R. Muralidharan, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. P.S. Balasubramaniyan, for Mr.G. Rajagopalan, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 14. 1996 made in I.A.No. 595 of 1996 in O.S.No. 129 of 1995 by the Court of Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore in so far dismissing an application filed under Order 8, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code pleading thereby to grant leave for reception of the additional written statement filed therewith.

.2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is contented that they found that necessary particulars and clarifications in respect of the prior proceedings were to be given in full; that they have to put forward the plea of res judicata and estoppel with reference to the facts of the case, in which even no prejudice will be caused to the other side also and hence praying for leave to be granted to receive the additional written statement filed therewith.

3. The respondent has also filed his counter stating thereby that the additional written statement is directly contradictory to the previous written statement further containing inconsistent stands; that the petitioners cannot introduce new and diagonally opposite stand, which is not permitted by Law; that the ave













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