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

1996 Supreme(Mad) 251

ABDUL HADI
R. Thyagarajan – Appellant
Versus
Meenakshi Ammal – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. A.M. Loganathan, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. P.B. Ramanujam, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :

.1. The defendant in O.S.No.5614 of 1987 has filed this civil revision petition against the order dated 110. 1995 in I.A.No.11190 of 95. The said LA. filed by the respondent/plaintiff sought permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The said prayer has been granted by the impugned order on condition the plaintiff pays a sum of Rs.200 on or before 210. 1995. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant

.has preferred this civil revision petition.

.2. The material allegation in the affidavit in support of the LA. is as follows:-

.“Since the plaint needs lot of amendment by incorporating a new Schedule regarding the encroached portion of the defendant and also the amendment of the Schedule to the plaint by mentioning the backyard portion alone, the plaint has to be amended suitably. To Avoid more corrections and also amendment, I am advised to file a new suit for the same cause of action.1

3. As already stated, the suit was filed as early as 1987 and it is not even stated in the supporting affidavit when actually the plaintiff realized that the plaint needed such amendments. Actually speaking, as already pointed by the learned counsel for the pe








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