Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
Periyasamy – Appellant
Versus
Thangavel – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to trial court order allowing pleading amendment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. opposing arguments on amendment delay and necessity. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. pre-trial stage permits reasonable written statement amendments. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. revision dismissed with liberty for reply and cross-examination. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.290 of 2021, the plaintiff has filed the above revision.
2. Before the trial Court, the defendants 1 and 2 filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code to amend the written statement and the same was allowed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has preferred the above revision.
3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff submits that the reasons assigned by the respondents/defendants for amending the written statement are not permissible and after four years of filing of written statement, the defendants filed an application for amendment and more particularly, the defendants want to change the entire conversation into false one, which is not permissible . But, the trial Court, without consider
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
