Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANDEEP PANNU, J
M/s Goraya Commission and Another – Appellant
Versus
M/s Sukhraj Agro – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed challenging dismissal of amendment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiff alleges typographical error in naming the proprietor. (Para 4) |
| 3. court discusses maintainability of fresh application after withdrawal. (Para 5) |
MANDEEP PANNU J.
1. The present civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, whereby the application dated 04.07.2025 filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 151 CPC was dismissed.
Brief Facts
2. The facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff/petitioner instituted a suit for recovery against M/s Sukhraj Agro, Shop No. 61, New Green Market, Batala, through its authorised signatory, Shri Rajinder Singh. In the plaint it was alleged that the defendant firm is a concern in which Rajinder Singh was managing and controlling the affairs. The written statement, however, specifically averred that the son of Rajinder Singh, namely Sukhraj Singh, is the sole proprietor of M/s Sukhraj Agro and that Rajinder Singh was not the p
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
