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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
Sammandhar – Appellant
Versus
Vimalraj – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.Ganesh

Table of Content
1. challenging the impugned order and filing for an amendment. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the court's analysis of the amendment request and its impact on the suit. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.280 of 2023 in O.S.No.149 of 2015 by the learned District Munsif, Panruti, the Revision Petitioners/defendants 2 and 3 preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Since the relief is claimed challenging the order passed by the trial judge, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

3. Before the trial court, the respondents/plaintiffs 1 to 5 have filed an application in I.A.No.280 of 2023 in O.S.No. 149 of 2015 under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to amend the plaint with regard to the date of partition deed as listed in the schedule. The said application was disputed by the defendants stating that after the commencement of trial and while P.W.1 was also cross- examined in part, the said application was filed with an intention to include the entire extent of 1 acre 35 cents and the alleged amendment was also at the stage of trial. Therefore, they raised objections. Considering both side submissions, the trial judge had held that the amendment sought by

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