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

2000 Supreme(All) 154

D.K.SETH
NARENDRA SINGH – Appellant
Versus
BHARTENDRA SINGH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Madhur Prakash, N.S.CHAUDHARY, P.K.SAXENA

D. K. SETH, J.

( 1 ) IN a suit for declaration of title on the basis of registered deed for partition dated 23rd March. 1974 stated to have been acted upon between the parties, the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had filed a Joint written statement. Subsequently the defendant No. 4 son of Virendra Singh one of the defendant was added as a party and he had filed a separate written statement. He had sought to amend the said written statement which was refused by the learned Civil Judge, Kasganj, Distt. Etah by an order dated 3rd August, 1994 passed In O. S. No. 6 of 1979. The revision was dismissed by order dated 13th December. 1994 passed in Civil Revision No. 487 of 1994. Thereafter the defendant No. 3 filed an application for amendment which was also dismissed by the Impugned order dated 21st September. 1996. This order is since being challenged in this revisional application.

( 2 ) MR. Madhur Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the amendment sought for is in the nature of elucidation of statement already made and shall not change the nature and character of the defence neither it will introduce a new defence or change the front, therefore, this statement should hav







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