Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)
Bollineni Srihari Rao vs Manukondu Ramadevi on 10 October, 2018 cites

Solavaiammal vs Ezhumalai Goundar on 16 November, 2011

The 4th defendant failed to establish that despite due diligence she could not have sought for the amendment earlier. The trial Court referred to a decision of the Madras High Court in Solavaiammal and others v. Ezhumalai Goundar and another1 and failed to follow the settled legal position laid down in the decision of this Court, which is binding. Therefore, the order impugned is illegal & unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.'
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 18 - D Murugesan - Full Document

Patchipulusu Mahalakshmi And Anr. vs Nagolu Ramanamma And Ors. on 8 April, 2004

12.4 Even the High Court of the Madras in the above said decision, which was also referred in the impugned order of the trial Court, did not lay down a principle that a plaint can be permitted to be amended at the instance of the defendant. The question referred for a decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court was - 'Whether the amendment of plaint in a partition suit 12 MSRM, J CRP.No.5554 _2018 can be allowed at the instance of the defendants?' In the operative portion of the judgment, the Madras High Court held as follows: - 'As we have been called upon to answer the question as to whether the application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking for amendment of the schedule to the plaint in a partition suit at the instance of the defendant is maintainable or not, we answer the said issue by holding that while considering such an application, it is for the Court to decide on the facts of each case. The reference is answered accordingly.' This decision, in the considered view of this Court, has no persuasive value either. 12.5 Further, this Court, in P. Mahalakshmi and another v. Nagolu Ramanamma and others2 dealing with a request of the defendants 1 & 2 for permission to amend the plaint schedule by adding item no.1 to the plaint 'A schedule' to the plaint in a suit for partition, held as follows: -
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Chilakani Venkata Rao vs Ch. Lakshman Rao And Ors. on 22 February, 2006

'It is well known that in a suit for partition all parties, who have a share in the properties to be partitioned, would be in the position of plaintiffs and can take all the pleas, which a plaintiff can take, and so their written statements also would be in the nature of plaints. So, if the revision-petitioner felt that the property alienated by the plaintiffs to Nataniel also has to be taken into consideration for deciding the question as to what are the properties that are to be partitioned between the parties, he should have mentioned that fact in the written statement. If he had not done so, he should have sought leave of the Court to amend his written statement for inclusion of the property alienated to Nataniel in the properties to be partitioned. As rightly observed by the trial Court, question of a defendant seeking leave to amend the plaint by inclusion of certain properties in the plaint schedule does not arise, as plaint contains the case of plaintiffs but not that of the defendant. So, it is only the plaintiff that can seek amendment of the plaint under Rule 17 of Order VI CPC. Therefore, I find no merits in this revision.' The ratio in the above decision squarely applies to the facts of the case as in that decision, this Court categorically held that in a suit for partition, the defendant cannot seek amendment of the schedule of the plaint and that if the defendant so desires, it is for the defendant to amend his own pleadings.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1