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

2006 Supreme(P&H) 3546

P.S.PATWALIA
Chander Mohan – Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr.B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No.6.

JUDGMENT

P.S. PATWALIA, J. (ORAL) - The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14.10.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, vide which an application filed by the defendant seeking amendment in the written statement was declined. The suit was filed on 01.06.1996 and still remains pending at the trial stage.

2. Learned counsel for the defendants in the suit, submits that once the Court had allowed the respondent-plaintiffs to amend the suit, it could not have frustrated the right of the defendants for filing the amended written statement to the plaint.

3. A perusal of the documents on the record as also the order passed by the trial Court would show that only a typographical error in the number of the property mentioned in the title of the suit was sought to be corrected by way of amendment. The number was wrongly mentioned as 206 and was sought to be corrected as 208 in the title of the suit. I have gone through the original plaint and also gone through the amended plaint. It is clear from the reading of the plaint that in the body of the plaint, the number 208 has been rightly referred to at more than one place. Therefore the amendmen







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