Mathew v. Cyriac
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging orders rejecting applications for amendment of plaint and impleadment. The Court allowed the amendment and impleadment applications after counsel concession, setting aside the impugned rejection orders.
What did the court decide?
Impugned orders rejecting amendment and impleadment dismissed; amendment and impleadment applications allowed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/29TH BHADRA, 1938
OP(C).No. 1482 of 2016 (O)
--------------------------(IA.NOS.1835,1836 AND 106(A)/15 IN OS.NO.321/2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA)
PETITIONER :
MATHEW, S/O.ABRAHAM, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANJIRAPPARA HOUSE, CHITTOOR KARA, MANAKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR
SMT.M.J.SAJITHA
RESPONDENT :
CYRIAC, S/O.ABRAHAM, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT PAIMPILLIL HOUSE, MANAKAD KARA, MANAKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, PIN- 685 584
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow the petitioner's petition challenging the lower court's dismissal of applications for amendment of plaint and impleadment.
Whether to set aside the orders rejecting the application for amendment and impleadment.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Mathew, S/O. Abraham
- respondent
Cyriac, S/O. Abraham
Coram
K. Ramakrishnan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court