Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sampath Kumar vs Ayyakannu And Anr on 13 September, 2002
15. The judgment relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioners in the case of Sampath
Kumar (supra), in that case, the suit was filed for
permanent prohibitory injunction alleging that the
plaintiff possession over the suit property which is an
agricultural land. The defendant in his written
statement denied the plaint averments and pleaded that
on the date of the institution of the suit he was in
12
possession of the suit property and therefore the suit for
injunction was liable to be dismissed and suit was
instituted in the year 1988. Under these
circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
the interest of the defendant can be protected by
directing that so far as the reliefs of declaration of title
and recovery of possession, now sought for, are
concerned the prayer in that regard shall be deemed to
have been made on the date on which the application
for amendment has been filed.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. ... vs Manohar Lal on 20 February, 2015
"13. The principle applicable for deciding the
application made for amendment in the pleadings
remains no more res integra and is laid down in
several cases.
M/S. Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs M/S. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors on 9 October, 2009
In Revajeetu Builders and Developers
v. Narayanaswamy & Sons ((2009) 10 SCC 84), this
Court, after examining the entire previous case law on
the subject, culled out the following principle in para
63 of the judgment which reads as under: (SCC p.102)
"63. On critically analyzing both the English
and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge
which ought to be taken into consideration
while allowing or rejecting the application for
amendment:
1