Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)
Muktumsab S/O. Masoom Sab vs Sri. Mallaiah S/O. Mallaiah on 4 July, 2014 cites

Sampath Kumar vs Ayyakannu And Anr on 13 September, 2002

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and his wife jointly filed a suit in O.S.No.38/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Kudligi, against respondent Nos.1 to 3 for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. Defendant No.3 filed written statement. Thereafter, the suit was dismissed. As against the dismissal of the suit, present petitioner filed appeal and on 26.11.2012 the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC 3 seeking permission to amend the plaint and seek the relief of possession of the suit schedule properties, if it is held that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule properties. But, the first Appellate Court erred in rejecting the application on the ground of latches. He submits that if such a relief is not granted, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and there will be miscarriage of justice. He relies upon decision in the case of SREENIVASA KRISHNAPPA BILAGI VS. SHIVAPPA CHANNABASAPPA (LAWS (KAR)-1988-8-30) on the point that when a party to an appeal seeks amendment of his pleadings, the proper stage at which the amendment prayed for should be allowed or refused is the stage of hearing of the appeal and in the case of XAVIER FERRAO VS. THERESA FERRAO (2007 (4) KCCR 2249), it was held that the proposed amendment does not change the basic structure of the suit but only a change in the nature of relief claimed, the application for amendment could not be rejected and in the case of SAMPATH KUMAR VS. 4 AYYAKANNU AND ANOTHER (AIR 2002 SC 3369) it was held that solely on the ground of delay prayer for amendment cannot be refused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 460 - Full Document

Xavier Ferrao S/O Anthony Ferrao And ... vs Theresa Ferrao W/O Gaberiel Urban ... on 20 July, 2007

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and his wife jointly filed a suit in O.S.No.38/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Kudligi, against respondent Nos.1 to 3 for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. Defendant No.3 filed written statement. Thereafter, the suit was dismissed. As against the dismissal of the suit, present petitioner filed appeal and on 26.11.2012 the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC 3 seeking permission to amend the plaint and seek the relief of possession of the suit schedule properties, if it is held that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule properties. But, the first Appellate Court erred in rejecting the application on the ground of latches. He submits that if such a relief is not granted, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and there will be miscarriage of justice. He relies upon decision in the case of SREENIVASA KRISHNAPPA BILAGI VS. SHIVAPPA CHANNABASAPPA (LAWS (KAR)-1988-8-30) on the point that when a party to an appeal seeks amendment of his pleadings, the proper stage at which the amendment prayed for should be allowed or refused is the stage of hearing of the appeal and in the case of XAVIER FERRAO VS. THERESA FERRAO (2007 (4) KCCR 2249), it was held that the proposed amendment does not change the basic structure of the suit but only a change in the nature of relief claimed, the application for amendment could not be rejected and in the case of SAMPATH KUMAR VS. 4 AYYAKANNU AND ANOTHER (AIR 2002 SC 3369) it was held that solely on the ground of delay prayer for amendment cannot be refused.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - V Jagannathan - Full Document
1