FRITIZ T M CLEMENT Vs. SUDHAKAR NADAR
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-14
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on
March 01,2002
FRITIZ T.M.CLEMENT
Appellant
VERSUS
SUDHAKARAN NADAR
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
MADHUKAR RAO PIMPALAPURE VS. MEENA PIMPALAPURE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-12-141] [REFERRED TO]DEVENDRA MOHAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-1-37] [REFERRED TO]
IMTIAZ AHMAD VS. ADDL DIST JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2005-10-179] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA SHANKER KESARI ALIAS PATALI VS. IST A D J [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA SHANKER KESHARI ALIAS PATALI VS. IST ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE SONEBHADRA [LAWS(ALL)-2006-2-117] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTA KUMAR LODH VS. PRASANTA KUMAR LODH [LAWS(GAU)-2012-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
B N KAMALANABHA REDDY VS. MUNIVENKATAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2005-9-48] [REFERRED TO]
SAYED ALI MALLICK VS. RAMJAN ALI [LAWS(CAL)-2012-5-62] [REFERRED TO]
KARTHIAYANI VS. RAMANATHAN [LAWS(KER)-2005-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
SELLAMMAL NOW DECEASED VS. M NATESAN [LAWS(MAD)-2003-10-228] [REFERRED TO]
L NARAYAN REDDY VS. P NARAYAN REDDY [LAWS(MAD)-2004-7-145] [REFERRED TO]
MOTHERLAND SERVICES VS. MADRAS POST TRUST [LAWS(MAD)-2005-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKRISHNAPPA VS. VENKATSAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2006-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR NARAYANRAO DIXIT VS. UDAY GRIHA NIRMAN SAMASYA NIWARAK SANSTHAN NAGPUR [LAWS(BOM)-2005-12-129] [REFERRED TO]
JEET RAM KISHORE VS. SUNDER SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2004-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
SAYED ALI MALICK VS. RAMJAN ALI [LAWS(CAL)-2012-5-99] [REFERRED TO]
M MUTHUMANICKAM VS. B SENTHILVEL [LAWS(MAD)-2007-6-358] [REFERRED TO]
G CHANDRANATH VS. S RAJAPUSHPAM [LAWS(MAD)-2009-12-131] [REFERRED TO]
RATAN SINGH VS. RAM PRASAD [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-3-47] [REFERRED TO]
UNITY REALTY VS. AMIT KUMAR MITRA [LAWS(CAL)-2013-3-76] [REFERRED TO]
SRI RANA PRATAP SINGH VS. KANAKLATA [LAWS(UTN)-2004-9-33] [REFERRED TO]
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD VS. DELHI STATE ELECTRICITY WORKERS UNION [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-170] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNILAL SHAW @ SAU VS. SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-5-29] [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUGHAM AND ANOTHER VS. PERUMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2007-10-417] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD PANDEY VS. ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (J.D.) DEHRADUN AND ANOTHER [LAWS(UTN)-2004-10-62] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KALA DEVI VS. PRAVEEN SURANA [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-2-157] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER KUMAR MEHRA VS. ROOP RANI MEHRA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-141] [REFERRED TO]
SHIROMANI FLAT OWNERS VS. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2019-7-197] [REFERRED TO]
DNYANOBA VS. ASHOK AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2020-2-262] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J. -
(1.)Leave granted. The appeal taken up for hearing.
(2.)By the impugned order the High Court of Kerala dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellants herein, and confirmed the order of the trial Court rejecting the amendment to plaint in O.S. No. 61 of 1997 (on the file of the Sub-Court, Neyyattinkara).
(3.)A suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,86,268 with future interest towards 'path-way fee' and 'quarrying fee' for various periods. The amendment application was filed at a stage when the suit was ripe for trial. In the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application, it is stated that certain omissions and mistakes crept into the plaint inadvertently and on account of the wrong advice given by the previous counsel engaged by the plaintiffs.
(2.)By the impugned order the High Court of Kerala dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellants herein, and confirmed the order of the trial Court rejecting the amendment to plaint in O.S. No. 61 of 1997 (on the file of the Sub-Court, Neyyattinkara).
(3.)A suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,86,268 with future interest towards 'path-way fee' and 'quarrying fee' for various periods. The amendment application was filed at a stage when the suit was ripe for trial. In the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application, it is stated that certain omissions and mistakes crept into the plaint inadvertently and on account of the wrong advice given by the previous counsel engaged by the plaintiffs.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.