Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.V. BABU, AGED 43 YEARS versus JAYAPRAKASH, S/O. DAMODARAN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.V. BABU, AGED 43 YEARS v. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O. DAMODARAN - WP(C) No. 16113 of 2006(R) [2007] RD-KL 329 (4 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16113 of 2006(R)

1. V.V. BABU, AGED 43 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O. DAMODARAN,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.M.J.THOMAS

For Respondent :SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :04/01/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

W.P.C.NO.16113 OF 2006 (R)

Dated this the 4 th day of January, 2007.



J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is plaintiff and respondent the defendant. Suit was filed seeking a decree for declaration of title of item No.1 of the property and fixation of the boundary of item No.1 of the property and a mandatory injunction in respect of the structure constructed by the respondent. Petitioner filed I.A.927/05, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the plaint. Respondent filed an objection and contended that permission cannot be granted to amend the plaint. Under Ext.P4 order learned Munsiff dismissed the application. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondents were heard. W.P.C.NO.16113 OF 2006 (R) 2

3. Though under Ext.P4 order learned Munsiff stated that, if the amendment is allowed, the character of the suit will be changed, it is not true. Even if the amendment application is allowed neither the character nor the nature of the suit will be changed. The amendment was necessary consequent to the filing of the report by the commissioner. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice and for a just decision in the case, it is necessary to grant permission to amend the plaint as sought for. Ext.P4 order is quashed. I.A.927/05 stands allowed. Respondents are permitted to file additional written statement. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,

JUDGE.

bkn


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.