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

2011 Supreme(MP) 179

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA
Pandit Ramgopal Pujari – Appellant
Versus
Pandit Akhilesh Kumar – Respondent


ORDER

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of impugned order dated 18-11-2010 (Annexure-P/11) passed by learned trial Court, whereby, application filed by defendant/petitioner under Order VI, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code and another application under Order VIII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code have been rejected.

2. A suit for declaration of the share and the partition has been filed by plaintiffs, who are respondents in this petition. The petitioner who is brother of plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed written statement and inter alia pleaded in para 8 that real intention of plaintiffs is to harass and torture the defendant mentally.

3. The contention of Shri Dhagat learned counsel for petitioner is that application to amend the written statement (Annexure-P/3) was submitted at the stage when the evidence of plaintiffs was not recorded. Learned counsel further submits that by the proposed amendment, the petitioner is explaining the pleading which he had already pleaded in para 8 of written statement and therefore said application ought to have been allowed by the Trial Court. Learned counse







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