IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
Sammandhar – Appellant
Versus
Vimalraj – Respondent
| 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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.