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

2012 Supreme(Ori) 192

M.M.DAS
Lingaraj Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
Lingaraj Senapati – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner: S.K.Nayak-2. S.S.K. Nayak
For Opp. Party : Biswajit Mohapatra

ORDER

15.05.2012 - The opp. parties have entered appearance through their learned counsel, Mr. Biswajit Mohapatra.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This writ petition has been filed against an order rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint. A suit was filed by the petitioner and the proforma opp. party No.2 for permanent injunction. During course of hearing of the suit, the petitioner alleged that for the first time, he came to know that only the nick name of his father has been mentioned in the cause title page of the plaint and his full name has not been mentioned. He filed an application for amendment of the cause title page of the plaint by mentioning the name of his father as "Late Gajendra @ Jogendra Sahoo" instead of only "Late Gajendra Sahoo". The Court below rejected the said application on the ground that the application for amendment has been filed after commencement of the trial of the suit, which is not permissible under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. and the plaintiff No.2 (Opp. party No.2 herein) has admitted in his evidence that he does not know any person named as Lingaraj Sahoo (petitioner) to be the son of late Gajendra. By now, Order 6, Ru





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