R.Maddhiyalagan v. M.Vennila
Case brief
What is this about?
The court rejected an application to amend the plaint schedule to include a house property. The applicant failed to explain the five-year delay as the reason provided was vague and uncorroborated by respondents.
What did the court decide?
Application A.No. 5623 of 2018 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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) MONDAY, THE 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH A. No.5623 of 2018 in C.S. No.954 of 2005
- R.Madhiyalagan residing at No.6, Karpagavinayagar Street, (6th Cross Street, 4th Main Road, Tirupathi Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai 99. 2. M.Vennila residing at P.No.13, Parvathi Nagar, Kollachery Kundrathur, Chennai 39. 3. R.Annathurai residing at No.3/4, Gangai Avenue, Sakthi Nagar, 5th Street, Ramapuram, Chennai - 89. 4. R.Dhanapal residing at No.1, C.G.Colony, 2nd Lane, Royapuram, Chennai 13. ... Plaintiffs -Versus1. K.Porselvi residing at No.32, U Block, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. 2. N.Niraiselvi residing at No.G 57/1, V.O.C. Main Road, Anna Nagar East, Chennai 102.
- R.Saroja residing at No.1/10, Mandaveli Amman Koil Cross Street, Ramapuram, Chennai 89.
- R.Selvakumar residing at Door No.1, New Street, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. R.Manoharan residing at No.4, 2nd Cross Street,
2
Sastry Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 20.
- V.Banumathy residing at No.1/10, Mandaveli Amman Koil Street, Ramapuram, Chennai 89.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application to amend the plaint schedule to include a house property should be accepted when the reason for belated inclusion is vague and uncorroborated.
Whether a delay of five years in approaching the court to include a property in the schedule warrants the grant of the application.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
R.Madhiyalagan
- respondent
K.Porselvi
Coram
Anita Sumanth
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court