Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
N/A, J
Smt.Meena Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Shriman Ayukt Mahodaya – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case regarding the suit and rental agreement. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the necessity and implications of the proposed amendments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on the amendment process and legal principles. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's ruling on the amendment and its implications. (Para 12) |
ORDER
The instant petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred challenging the order dated 06.01.2014 passed by VI Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No.27-A of 2012 whereby an application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. was allowed and he was permitted to carry out the necessary amendment in the suit.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against present respondent with regard to Shop No.22 situated at Indira Market (Topi Bazar), Lashkar, Gwalior to the effect that respondent in order to give shops on rent had published a notice in the daily newspaper “Dainik Bhaskar” dated 15.07.1999 inviting applications from public for first floor by fixing monthly rent @ Rs.2,300/- and other miscellaneous
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
