Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.GOPALAN NADAR, AGED 51 YEARS versus D.PREMALATHA, D/O.PADMAKSHI

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.GOPALAN NADAR, AGED 51 YEARS v. D.PREMALATHA, D/O.PADMAKSHI - WP(C) No. 11229 of 2007(J) [2007] RD-KL 13684 (20 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 11229 of 2007(J)

1. P.GOPALAN NADAR, AGED 51 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. D.PREMALATHA, D/O.PADMAKSHI,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.HARIKUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :20/07/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

WP(C)No. 11229 OF 2007 J

Dated this the 20th July, 2006.



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the learned I Additional Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram in I.A.9545/06. The said application was one for amendment of the written statement whereby the defendant wanted to incorporate a date regarding the construction made by the plaintiff in his property. The other side opposed it on the ground that there was a plaint, written statement, a counter claim and a replication and when the plaintiff specifically pleaded in the replication that he made the construction ten years before, the defendant wanted to amend his written statement by incorporating a prayer for introducing a date of construction. As rightly found out by the court below if such a pleading is allowed to be incorporated it may prejudicially affect the accrued right of one of the parties. Therefore, I do not want to interfere with the decision rendered by the court below but at the same time when there is a statement in the replication regarding the period of construction it becomes a subject matter of dispute and the defendant will be always at liberty to prove his case on the date of construction. So, even when a pleading regarding the date, WPC 11229/07 2 the matter has to be resolved by the court in the light of the contentions in the replication. Therefore, with these observations the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that when the plaintiff has got a contention regarding the limitation that has also to be specifically considered by the court. M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.