Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 851 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing Vidyabai & Ors vs Padmalatha & Anr on 12 December, 2008

Sh. S. Manohar Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 17 April, 2015

In Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & Anr. (Supra), the defendants had moved application for amendment of their Written Statement by stating that the materials and information necessary for drafting proper Written Statement was not within their knowledge. But the same was dismissed by the Trial Court by holding that from the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be said that they were not having knowledge of the same.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jagjit Singh vs Jasmer Singh And Ors on 5 May, 2023

v. S.K. Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and Another, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 824 : 2008(6) R.A.J. 248 : (2008) 14 SCC 364, Vidyabai and Others v. Padmalatha and Another, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 763 : 2009(1) RCR (Rent) 120 : (2009) 2 SCC 409, Man Kaur (dead) By LRS v. Hartar Singh Sangha, 2011(1) RCR (Civil) 189 : 2010(6) R.A.J. 437 : (2010) 10 SCC 512." (Emphasis supplied) It is thus, clear that the ld. Trial Court is in manifest error in allowing the amendment application of respondents no. 6 and 7. As regards, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal's Case, (2006) 4 SCC 385 being relied upon by the respondents, in my considered view, the same is not applicable as, in that case the pleadings were filed before the enforcement of amended Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Saiyed Rashedakhatun D/O ... vs Vishnubhai Ambalal Patel Deceased Thro ... on 28 August, 2014

In  Vidyabai   And   Others   v.   Padmalatha   And   Another   (supra),   the   Supreme   Court   held  "The  date on which the issues are framed is the date   of   first   hearing.   Provisions   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   envisage   taking   of   various  steps   at   different   stages   of   the   proceedings.   Filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination­ in­chief of the witness, in our opinion, would   amount to "commencement of proceeding".
Gujarat High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - A Kumari - Full Document

Shri Madhavan vs S.Gurusamy on 22 January, 2021

It was rightly rejected so. Therefore, the ruling relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner viz., (2020) 11 SCC 549 [Pandit Malhari Mahale Vs. Monika Pandit Mahale and Others]; (2019) 4 SCC 332 [M.Revanna Vs. Anjanamma (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Others] and CDJ 2008 SC 2090 [Vidyabai & Others Vs. Padmalatha & Another] will not help the 17/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.(PD).No.1131 of 2021 Revision Petitioner. Mere technicalities of law that after commencement of trial the amendment shall not be allowed, if applied in this case, will result in miscarriage of justice thereby strengthen the case of the Defendant. Therefore, the name was crept in the UDR Patta by mistake for which the Plaintiff has already objected and filed appropriate Appeal before the Revenue Authorities concerned. Only to prevent this attempt of dispossession by the Defendant, the Plaintiff is before the Civil Court. At that stage, if this amendment is refused, the valuable right of the Plaintiff who had been in enjoyment from 1941 till the date of trial will be lost is to be considered only in the conclusion of the trial by the learned trial Judge concerned. Therefore, the amendment allowed by the trial Court cannot be faulted by this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next