Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Phoolchand And Anr vs Gopal Lal on 10 March, 1967
The settled proposition reiterated in Phoolchand vs. Gopal Lal (supra) is that:
Nanja Naicken vs Rangammal on 15 October, 1971
In Nanja Naicken vs. Rangammal (AIR 1972 Mad 384), amendment
was permitted where an omission occurred in the preliminary decree while
recording shares already adjudicated. That case is distinguishable from the
present one, where augmentation is claimed based on events subsequent to the
preliminary decree.
Haji M.A.Ahmed Sadakathullah ... vs A.Mohideen Abdul Khader on 5 December, 2007
7. This Court in M.A. Ahmed Sadakathullah Maraicair (supra) held that
unless a fresh preliminary decree is passed declaring the augmented share, the
existing preliminary decree cannot be amended under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
1