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

2016 Supreme(Mad) 42

G.CHOCKALINGAM
R. Senthilkumar – Appellant
Versus
C. Natarajan – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant: N. Manokaran
For the Respondents: S.R. Balasubramaniam

ORDER :

G. Chockalingam, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant, against the order dated 19.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruchengode, in I.A. No. 604 of 2012 in O.S. No. 82 of 2009, in and by which, the said I.A. filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, for amendment of the plaint, was allowed with costs.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contended that the trial Court, without application of mind, passed an erroneous order allowing the application filed for amendment of the plaint. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the suit was filed for mandatory injunction and the petitioner/defendant has filed his written statement on 10.08.2009 by disputing the title of the respondent/plaintiff and also the maintainability of the suit. The learned counsel also submitted that the said amendment application has been filed only after the examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and further, without assigning any reason, the amendment application has been filed. It is also submitted that the trial Court has failed to note that the amendment is totally time barred, because the re













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