Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J
Vasantha – Appellant
Versus
Pragalathan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of revision petition under cpc. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. decree holder's right to amend. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. argument that amendments aid clarity. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's decision on procedural amendments. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. final ruling on allowing amendments to execution petition. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed to to set aside the order in R.E.A.No.5 of
2019 in R.E.P.No.05 of 2019 arising out of O.S.No.893 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambur.
2.The decree holder is the revision petitioner.
3.I have heard Mr.R.Subramaniam, for Mr.Balasubramanian Ravi Iyer, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Despite service of notice, the respondents have neither chosen to appear in person nor through counsel and hence, the respondents are called and set ex-parte.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed an execution petition for delivery of the schedule mentioned property, in terms of the decree passed in O.S.No.893 of 1996. He would further state that the decree was challenged not only in first appeal, but also by way of second appeal before this Co
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
