Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In the case of Gopal Sardar -Vs-

Karuna Sardar reported in (2004) 4 SCC 252.

2. In the case of Munilal -Vs- Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Reported in (1996) 1 SCC 90.

3. In the case of T.N. Alloy foundry Co.

Ltd. -Vs- T.N. Electricity Board & Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 392.

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the preemptors/opposite parties submits that since the maintainability of the preemption application has been challenged on the ground that it is hit by the doctrine of partial preemption, the preemptors by the proposed amendment have sought to explain that it is not so.

Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and on going through the records, it appears that the preemptors by the proposed amendment are seeking to incorporate the facts necessary to elucidate topography of the suit property to nullify the challenge of the preemptees as to the maintainability of the application for preemption on the ground that the same is bad for partial preemption.

The preemptors by the proposed amendment are neither withdrawing any admission nor they are adding any new prayer as such there is no question of the proposed amendment being barred by limitation. The decisions cited by Mrs. Maity are misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The order impugned, therefore, does not call for any interference.

It is clarified that it is open for the pre- emptees to take the defence of partial preemption notwithstanding such defence being taken by them in their written objection to the application for preemption in a cryptic manner.

The preemptees are entitled to file additional written objection to the amended application for preemption within a period of fourteen days from date or within fourteen days from the date of service of the copy of the amended application for preemption whichever is later.