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

2008 Supreme(Mad) 4250

M.VENUGOPAL
Meena – Appellant
Versus
Rani – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Subramanian, M.S. Mani, Advocates.
For the Respondent: ----------

Judgment :

Civil Revision petition is filed against the order dated 8. 2008 made in I.A.No.11845 of

2008 in O.S.No.3855 of 2007 on the file of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

The revision petitioner/respondent/defendant has filed thecivil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 8. 2008 in I.A.No.11845 of 2008 in O.S.No.3855 of 2007 passed by VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in allowing the amendment application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC by the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff praying to amend the plaint.

2. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.11845 of 2008 in O.S.No.3855 of 2007 has inter alia opined that in the main suit, the evidence has not commenced and further that an objection to the Commissioners report has not been filed by the revision petitioner/respondent/defendant and has resultantly allowed the amendment application without costs.

3. In I.A.No.11845 of 2008 in O.S.No.3855 of 2007, the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff has sought for permission of the trial Court to amend certain paragraphs of the original plaint which is more fully and particularly described in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of




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