S.C.DAS
Manoranjan Nath – Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Roy – Respondent
With the consent of learned counsel of both side the matter is taken up for hearing and disposal at this stage itself.
2. Heard learned counsel Mr. D.K.Biswas for the petitioner and learned counsel Ms. S. Deb Gupta for the respondent.
3. The respondent as plaintiff instituted Money Suit No.09/2013 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Agartala against the petitioner herein, as defendant, seeking a decree for realization of Rs.32,993/-. While the suit was at the stage of hearing final argument, the plaintiff-respondent filed a petition under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 153 and 151 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that there were some typographical mistake due to overlook and prayed for allowing the following amendment:-
“SCHEDULE OF AMENDMENT
The name of the business in the cause title in page 1 in 3rd line will be Prabhati Concern instead of Prabhati Medical Agency.
The name of the business of the plaintiff in page 2 paragraph 1 in 3rd line will be M/S Prabhati Concern instead of Prabhati Medical Agency and the name of the business/shop of the defendant in para 1 of page 2 in the 4th line will be Swasti Medical Hall instead of Maa Medical Hall.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.