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

K.VENKATARAMAN
Chinnu Padayachi – Appellant
Versus
Dhanalakshmi – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:P. Valliappan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:P. Mani, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

K. Venkataraman, J.—The Defendant in O.S. No. 257 of 2008 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, aggrieved over the order of the said Court, made in I.A. No.376 of 2010, is before this Court by filing the present Civil Revision Petition.

2. The Respondents herein, being the Plaintiffs in the said Suit have filed the same for declaration of their title over the suit property and for Permanent Injunction restraining the Petitioners herein from in any way encroaching on the suit land. In the said Suit, they have filed an Application in I.A. No.376 of 2010, for amendment of the Plaint, incorporating the prayer for mandatory injunction, directing the Petitioners herein from removing the construction put up in the common lane. The said Application was allowed by the Court below and the present Revision is directed against the said order.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners contended that the amendment which has been sought for by the Respondents was barred by limitation on the date, when the Application for amendment was filed. Hence, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the amendment should not have been allowed by the Court









































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