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

2022 Supreme(MP) 1385

SUBODH ABHYANKAR
Vigyan Shastri – Appellant
Versus
Rusoma Laboratories – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Vikas Rathi, Advocate, Ghan Shyam Agrawal, Advocate

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dtd. 29/3/2022 (Annexure P-1) passed in Civil Suit No.1-A/2015 by the Vth Civil Judge, Junior Division, Indore whereby, the application dtd. 11/3/2022 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of the C.P.C. filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has been rejected on the ground of absence of due diligence shown by the petitioner/plaintiff.

2. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that due to typographical error, the it could not mention the proper survey number of the disputed property as in para 10 of the plaint, it is mentioned as Survey No. 149 instead of Survey Nos.253, 249, 250, 251 and 252, although all the other particulars of the property are identical and there is no change in its description as its boundaries which are also the same as also the area which is 4.09 acres.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that, it is true that the petitioner/plaintiff could not file the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC earlier, but as it is only a clerical error even if the application is filed subsequent to closure of the evidence, on the date

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