-
iDraf
-
Decision
Bikram Singh And Ors
v.
Ram Baboo And Ors
(Supreme Court Of India)
Civil Appeal No. 264 of 1981 | 21-01-1981
DESAI, J.
1. In our opinion, this is a case in which the trial court and the revisional courts were in error in refusing amendment of the plaint. The was a consequential amendment which ought to have been allowed. Accordingly this appeal is allowed. Application for amendment is accordingly granted and the trial be proceeded further in accordance with law. It will be upon to the defendants to submit written statement to amend plaint.
2. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
1. In our opinion, this is a case in which the trial court and the revisional courts were in error in refusing amendment of the plaint. The was a consequential amendment which ought to have been allowed. Accordingly this appeal is allowed. Application for amendment is accordingly granted and the trial be proceeded further in accordance with law. It will be upon to the defendants to submit written statement to amend plaint.
2. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
Advocates List
For
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE JUSTICE D. A. DESAI
HON'BLE JUSTICE A. P. SEN
Eq Citation
(1982) 1 SCC 485
AIR 1981 SC 2036
LQ/SC/1981/36
HeadNote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 6 R. 17 — Amendment of plaint — Consequential amendment — Application for amendment of plaint allowed
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
