Amendment of plaint in ist appeal


The trial court dismissed injunction suit due to differences in 'the schedule of property' in plaint and that of marked documents - the title is clear and relating to the suit property - the court appointed land surveyor clearly identified the suit property in the name of the petitioner. However, the trial court has not considered this evidence properly.Had the evidence been considered properly it would have become clear to the court that mistakes in the plaint were purely typing errors.

Presently on Ist appeal, 03 I.A's - two petitions seeking amendment to 'the schedule of property' in plaint and one for 'Marking' the advocate commissioner's report+ the court appointed land surveyor report were filed at the appellate court.

The appellate court dismissed the two amendment petitions on the grounds that it was belated and should been done before the trial began at the lower court while the I.A petition seeking 'Marking' the advocate commissioner's report+ the court appointed land surveyor report was kept pending by the appellate court-Had this been done, it would have become easier for the court to grant amendment since the defendant has quoted a non-existent survey number in all his statements and appeared along with his counsel for the advocate commissioner and govt.appointed land surveyor's inspection.

Had  the advocate commissioner's report+ the court appointed land surveyor report been considered, it would be clear that the defendant has only been trying to trespass into the suit property.

I would like to know whether in a situation as this, will the petitioner  be able to win a C.R.P at the Madras high Court under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C ?

I would also like to know whether it is correct on the part of the appellate court to have dismissed two I.A petitions without considering the 3rd I.A petition( 'Marking' the advocate commissioner's report+ the court appointed land surveyor report) - if this is done, it will easily erase whatever doubts the courts had due to the differences in the plaint schedule of property in the injunction suit.

I understand that there are a few judgements of Madras High Court wherein the amendments have been upheld in favour of the aggrieved petitioner.

Can somebody help me with case details please?

Thanks and Regards,

Venkataraman Iyer

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

Search Forum:








×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu