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

2023 Supreme(MP) 343

SANJAY DWIVEDI
Devendra Sadho – Appellant
Versus
Pramila Kumar – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Pushpendra Yadav for Petitioner; Ajay Mishra with Ms. Nikita Kaurav for respondents.

ORDER

1. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the order passed by the trial Court dated 10.3.2021 (Annexure-P/1) allowing the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a pending suit.

2. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in the plaint ought to have been rejected by the trial Court for the reason that the suit had been filed for declaration and permanent injunction not claiming any possession, but by way of amendment the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has claimed relief of possession also and the said relief was apparently time barred, therefore, the same cannot be claimed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 by way of amendment. He has also submitted that the amendment made in the plaint changed the nature of suit. He has further submitted that the issue has already framed and affidavit under Order 18 rule 4 of CPC has also submitted by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and when the applic

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