Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)Fritiz T.M. Clement & Anr vs Sudhakaran Nadar & Anr on 1 March, 2002
7.Added further, on the side of the revision petitioners, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in FRITIZ T.M. CLEMENT AND ANOTHER VS. SUDHAKARAN NADAR AND ANOTHER (2002 (1) CTC 695) as among other things observed as follows:
S. Ramakrishnan vs R.M. Subbiah on 28 June, 1999
8.Moreover, the revision petitioners relies on the decision of this Court in S.RAMAKRISHNAN VS. R.M. SUBBIAH AND OTHERS (2004 (4) CTC 95) wherein it is held that
'While considering application for amendment of pleadings, hyper technical approach shall not be adopted and normally such application must be allowed unless injury will be caused to other side or allowing such application would take away right accrued to other side and if a party seeking amendment has comes belatedly he may be put on terms and the application for amendment of plaint allowed on condition that applicant pays Rs.7,000/- to defendant.'
Puran Ram vs Bhaguram & Anr on 29 February, 2008
12.At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PURAN RAM VS. BHAGURAM AND ANOTHER) ((2008) 4 MLJ 258 (SC)) wherein it is held that
'when the order of trail Court was either without jurisdiction or perverse or arbitrary, only then High Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution in the discretion of the trial Court.'
P. Subba Naicker vs Veluchamy Naicker And Three Ors. on 24 December, 2003
4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/appellants 1 and 2 submits that after the amendment to Civil Procedure Code, it has come into force on 1.7.2002, no amendment of plaint can be allowed after commencement of trial unless the Court comes to the conclusion in spite of the due diligence, the plaintiff could not have raised the pleas before commencement of trial and to lend support to his contention, he relies on the decision in P.SUBBA NAICKER VS. VELUCHAMY NAICKER AND THREE OTHERS (2004 (2) CTC 742 ) wherein it is observed as follows:
R. Dhanalakshimi And Ors. vs Senthilkumari And Ors. on 10 July, 2007
15.In the end he cites the decision of this Court in R.DHANALAKSHIMI AND OTHERS VS. V.SENTHILKUMARI AND OTHERS (2008 (1) CTC 19) wherein it is held that
'The Court has power to allow either party to alter or amend Pleadings at any stage of proceedings which is necessary for purpose of determining real questions of controversy between parties and law of pleadings is only to ensure that both parties should be aware of contentious issues before parties go for trial etc, and further it is also observed that procedural law is only hand-maid of Justice and the Court may, in appropriate cases, ignore or excuse a mere irregularity in observance of procedural law in larger interest of justice '.
Ma Shwe Mya vs Maung Mo Hnaung on 26 January, 1921
24.Also in the decision of MA SHWE MYA VS. MAUNG MO HNAUNG (AIR 1922 PRIVY COUNCIL 249) it is held thus:
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
North Eastern Railway Administration, ... vs Bhagwan Das (D) By Lrs on 11 April, 2008
14.Also, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION, GORAKHPUR VS. BHAGWAN DAS (D) BY LRS. ((2008)8 MLJ 789 (SC)) wherein it is observed thus:
Krishnaru And Prasanth vs Incorporated And Unincorporated ... on 25 July, 2005
5. He also cites the decision in KRISHNARU AND ANOTHER VS. INCORPORATE AND UNINCORPORATED DEVASWAMS, SUCHINDRAM, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SUCHINDNRAM, KANYAKUMAIR DISTRICT ((2005)4 M.L.J.270) wherein it is held that
'an amendment to a written statement can be allowed even at the appellate stage, if the proposed amendment does not introduce a totally new plea'.
1