SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(SC) 923

BRIJESH KUMAR, R.C.LAHOTI
Sampath Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Ayyakannu – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

The case was decided by the Supreme Court of India [2002 Supreme(SC) 923][2002 AIR(SC) 3369][2002 AIR(SCW) 3925][2002 6 ALD(SC) 63][2003 1 AllCJ 1][2002 49 AllLR 591][2002 4 AllMR(SC) 866][2003 1 APLJ 1][2003 1 AWC 18][2002 3 BLJR 2290][2003 1 BLJR 93][2003 1 CHN(SC) 184][2002 3 CivCC 364][2002 4 CTC 189][2003 2 CurLJ 45][2002 4 ICC 859][2002 ILR(Kar) 5055][2003 1 JCR(SC) 283][2002 7 JT 182][2002 20 LCD 1186][2002 3 MLJ 160][2002 2 PLJ 445][2002 4 RCR(Civ) 566][2003 94 RD 148][2003 1 RLW(Raj) 49][2002 6 Scale 544][2002 7 SCC 559][2002 SCR 397][2003 1 WBLR 174][2002 1 WLC 797][2002 KHC 1366][2002 6 Supreme 424], which is the Supreme Court of India [Supreme Court of India].


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction alleging the plaintiff-appellant s possession over the suit property which is an agricultural land. The defendant in his written statement denied the plaint averments and pleaded that on the date of the institution of the suit he was in possession of the suit property and therefore the suit for injunction was liable to be dismissed. The suit was instituted in the year 1988.

3. In the year 1999, but before the commencement of the trial, the plaintiff moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking an amendment in the plaint. It is alleged in the application that in January 1989, that is. during the pendency of the suit, the defendant has forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff. On such averment the plaintiff sought for relief of declaration of title to the suit property and consequential relief of delivery of possession. The suit was proposed to be valued accordingly along with the payment of court fee. The prayer for amendment was opposed on behalf of the defendant-respondent submitting that the plaintiff was changing the cause of action through amendment which was not p












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top