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

2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 43349

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MACHANI SETHURAM – Appellant
Versus
SMT SAROJINI SHUKLA – Respondent


ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the order dated

16.08.2016 passed on IA No.2 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC') in O.S.No.27364/2012 on the file of XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge at Mayohall, Bengaluru.

2. Heard Sri.Narasimharaju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.D.P.Shivaprasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed suit for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs in respect of suit schedule property mentioned in the plaint. After service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed written statement. It is submitted that the defendants have denied the title of the petitioner in paragraph 10 of the written statement referring to the sale deeds dated 06.06.1987 and 14.11.1994. Hence, the plaintiff was compelled to file an application for amendment of the suit seeking additional prayer under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. The Trial Court, without considering the application on its merit and without assigning any appropriate reasons, has rejected the application. It is

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