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

2008 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2162

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.N.KRISHNAN, J
DAINABI AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
P.NARAYANAN – Respondent


Advocates:
Sri.JAWAHAR JOSE, Smt.CISSY MATHEWS, Sri.A.G.ADITYA SHENOY, Sri.M.SASINDRAN

J UDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the order of the Munsiff's Court, Hosdurg in I.A.No.928/2004 in O.S.No.114/2001. The said application is one for amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. The plaintiff has instituted a suit for realisation of the amount and the defendant, who is the petitioner has filed a written statement raising the contention that he is entitled to much more amount from the plaintiff and he intends to file a separate suit for realisation of the same. Thereafter the petitioner, viz., the defendant filed an application for amendment of the written statement, whereby he wanted to set up the case of a counter claim. It was strongly opposed by the other side, viz., the plaintiff on the ground that the relief sought to be incorporated in the form of a counter claim is barred by limitation and therefore the court should not allow the application for amendment. The court, on a consideration of the materials and relying on the decision of this Court reported in Sabhari Syndicate v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.(2001(1) KLT 646) held that even if the counter claim is barred by limitation as on the date of filing of the applicati

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