Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
D.Devaki W/o.Deivasigamani – Appellant
Versus
Rajeswari W/o.late R.Thangavelu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. existence of an amendment request in a partition suit. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. objection to the amendment based on timeliness. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's agreement with the necessity of the amendment to resolve disputes. (Para 4) |
For Petitioner(s): Mr. J.Sudhakaran For Respondent(s): Ms. J.Lavanya for Mr.V. Chandraprabu for R8, R14 & R15 R4 & R10 to R13 – No appearance R1, R2, R3, R5 to R7 – vacated R9 - died ORDER Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.10 of 2024 in O.S.No.2583 of 2013 by the learned XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the Revision Petitioners/plaintiffs preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2.Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No. 2583 of 2013 against the defendants for the relief of partition and separate possession along with mandatory injunction and also sought for the relief of declaration in respect of settlement deed dated 14.12.2011 and permanent injunction. The said suit was contested by the respondents/defendants. Some of the defendants filed written statement and others remained exparte. On seeing the written statement, the Revision Petitioners/plaintiffs came to know that there is ano
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
