Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
R N PARAMESWARAN NAMBIAR – Appellant
Versus
NEELAKANTAN NAMBIAR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to amendment rejection linked to misstatement. (Para 1) |
| 2. relied upon case law supporting consequential relief. (Para 2) |
| 3. section 34 allows amendment before judgment. (Para 3) |
| 4. reflections on the necessity of amendment for justice. (Para 4) |
| 5. final decision allows amendment for proper resolution. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
The original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P8 order whereby an application seeking amendment of the plaint was rejected by the court below. The suit was one for declaration of title, possession, fixation of boundary and declaration of easement rights. The suit went for trial. The plaintiff’s evidence was over and defendants evidence was almost over. At that stage the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint by adding a relief for recovery of possession of A schedule properties. The relief portion alone was sought to be amended and none of the earlier averments contained in the plaint regarding the possession of the plaintiff was sought to be amended. The reason stated for seeking such an amendment is that when the plaintiff was examined, since he was short of hearing, he mistook a question and stated
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
