Alimamma v. Mr Abdul Gafoor
Case brief
What is this about?
A writ petition under Article 226 was filed by the defendant in the underlying suit to set aside the civil court's order allowing amendment of the date of a sale agreement from 05.03.2019 to 11.03.2019. The High Court held there was no irregularity in the impugned order and rejected the writ petition.
What did the court decide?
The writ petition stands rejected.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 21466/2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
ALIMAMMA W/O HAMAD BAVA AGED 65 YEARS R/AT PERIMAR HOUSE PUDU VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D K DISTRICT - 574 143.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADHUKESHWARA R.P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE)
AND :
MR ABDUL GAFOOR S/O B. SULAIMAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT MARIPALLA HOUSE PUDU POST BANTWAL TALUK D K DISTRICT - 574 143.
... RESPONDENT
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 226 of the Constitution prohibits the civil court from allowing amendment of the date of an agreement filed as a defense.
Whether there was any irregularity in the civil court accepting the amendment application of the plaintiff in the underlying suit.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Alimamma W/o Hamad Bava
- respondent
Mr Abdul Gafoor S/o B. Sulaiman
Coram
B. M. Shyam Prasad
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Karnataka HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/21466/2021
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court