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

MADRAS HIGH COURT
PAVAN HARLALKA HUF – Appellant
Versus
NARENDRA HARLALKA HUF AND 3 OTHERS – Respondent


Advocates:
['M/S AL GANTHIMATHI', '', 'AR KARHIKLAKSHMANAN', 'C SANTHOSH KUMAR']

A.Nos.3485 & 3486 of 2022

in C.S.No.229 of 2017

A.Nos.3485 & 3486 of 2022 in

C.S.No.229 of 2017

Reserved On :

04.11.2022

Pronounced On:

111622

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.J.,

A.No.3485 of 2022 and A.No.3486 of 2022 in C.S.No.229 of 2017

have been filed seeking permission to the applicant/plaintiff to file reply

statement to the written statement filed by defendants 1 and 3

respectively.

2.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that fresh

reply statement is filed by the plaintiff in answer to the written statement

filed by the first defendant. It is necessitated for the reason that certain

new facts, averments and contentions are raised by defendants in their

written statement. Therefore, it has become necessary to file a detailed

reply statement. Only if the reply statements are permitted to be filed,

applicant will be in a position to pursue the suit.

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.Nos.3485 & 3486 of 2022

in C.S.No.229 of 2017

3.The learned counsel for the first respondent/first defendant

strongly opposed this application on the ground that the written

statement was filed by the first respondent giving specific answer to th

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