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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31551

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. S. Sundar, P. Dhanabal, JJ
M/s. Ramaniyam Real Estate Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Gunda Ramani – Respondent
OSA Nos. 23 and 24 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Sundaresan
For the Respondents: Mr. Sk.Rahul Vivek, Mr. T.Arun Kumar, AGP

The necessity for framing additional issues in litigation is validated by specific pleadings in the written statement.

Headnote:The current appeal examines the order of the learned Single Judge allowing applications for framing additional issues in a suit concerning specific performance of an agreement related to an undivided share. The appellant's arguments on the necessity of these issues were deemed substantiated by the court based on the pleadings reflected. The court concluded that no error warranted intervention.

Result: Appeals dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. plaint describes terms of contract. (Para 2)
2. court validates additional issues based on pleadings. (Para 3 , 4)

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble S.S.Sundar J.)

These appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in A.Nos.

4603 and 4604 of 2024, allowing the applications filed by defendants 1 to 3 in C.S. No.

68 of 2021 under Order 14, Rule 8 of the O.S. Rules to frame additional issues.

2. The appellant filed the suit in C.S.No. 68 of 2021 for specific performance of an agreement concerning an undivided 3/5 share. In the plaint, a letter was referred to, ex- plaining certain terms of the contract. The learned Single Judge found that additional is-

sues were necessary and, therefore, allowed the applications.

3. This Court has gone through the additional issues framed by the learned Single Judge and finds that they certainly arise for consideration, given the specific pleadings in the written statement.

4. In the light of the specific pleadings in the written statement, the learned Single Judge rightly allowed the applications for framing additional issues. This Court finds no error warranting interference. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs. Consequently, all connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.

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 Back to top