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

2001 Supreme(Mad) 232

E.PADMANABHAN
Tirupathi Nadar – Appellant
Versus
Pakiyalakshmi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. T. Easwaradhas, Advocate for Petitioners.

Judgment :

1. This revision has been preferred being aggrieved by the fair and decretal order dated 9.7.1996 made in I.A.No.828 of 1996 in O.S.No.384 of 1991 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Ambasamudram. By the said order the Court below aismissed the application taken out by the petitioner herein for amendment of the written statement under O.6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. This Court ordered notice of motion on 20.6.1997 and since then it is pending at the stage notice of motion. The respondents are yet to be served. The petitioners also had not chosen to serve the respondents 1 to 5. However, this Court with the consent of counsel for the petitioners took the revision itself for final disposal.

3. Heard Mr.T.Easwaradhas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

4. The respondents herein instituted the suit O.S.No.384 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram seeking for the following reliefs:

(a) of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents and servants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff’ s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 1st schedule property;

(b) for a mandatory injunc




















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