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

2024 Supreme(MP) 150

SUBODH ABHYANKAR
Riyazuddin – Appellant
Versus
Nisaruddin @ Antim Lala – Respondent


Advocates:
Harish Chandra Tripathi for petitioner;
A. S. Garg with Jitendra Shukla for respondents No. 1 to 4.

ORDER

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 17.1.2023, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ujjain in RCSA No.28-A/2017 whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 rule 17 of the C.P.C., 1908 for amendment in the plaint, has been rejected.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the aforesaid suit was filed on 15.7.2017, by the plaintiff for injunction only. The suit was contested by the respondents/defendants, and after the evidence was recorded, the learned Judge of the trial Court has passed the judgment dated 18.7.2019, and dismissed the suit. Against the aforesaid dismissal, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Appellate Court along with an application under Order 41 rule 27 of the C.P.C. for placing on record the additional documents. The aforesaid application was allowed by the District Appellate Court vide its order dated 23.3.2021, and remanded the matter back to the trial Court holding that certain issues have not been framed by the trial Court which ought to have been framed, and thus, directing the trial Court to decide the matter

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