Allowed

Dhayanidhi Alagiri., v. Y Not Studios

Madras HC5 Sept 2018A/6698/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras allowed an application to amend the long/short cause title and address of the third defendant in a civil suit. Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 raised no objection. The order permitted the amendment and directed the plaintiff to implement it immediately or by a specific date.

What did the court decide?

Application to amend plaint title and address of defendant no.3 allowed; consequential amendments directed to be made.

Dhayanidhi Alagiri., Vs Y Not Studios — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

A.No.6698 of 2018

¶7

in C.S.No.466 of 2018

¶8

Dhayanidhi Alagiri Trading as Cloud Nine Movies, Door No.12, First Floor, Tiger Varadhachari, First Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090. ..Applicant/Plaintiff -Versus1.Y.Not Studios, Represented by Mr.Sashikant Sivaji No.15, Palur Kanniayappan Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶9

C.S.Amuthan, No.2991, 1st Street, 13th Main Road, Z Blcok, Shanti Colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040

¶10

Trident Movies, Represented by R.Ravindran JP Avenue, No 1C and 1D, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. ..Respondents/Defendants Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to amend the long and short cause title and statement of address in the plaint to show the 3rd respondent/defendant as: R.Ravindran, Trading as Trident Arts, JP Avenue, No. 1C and 1D, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

and carry out consequential amendments

¶13

¶14

This Application coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order:

¶15

Sole plaintiff in the main suit is lone applicant herein. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 in the main suit are respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the instant application.

¶16

their respective ranks in the main suit.

¶17

4.This application has been taken out for amending the plaint. To be noted, the amendment sought to be made is only in the short/ long cause titles and the statement of address under Order VI Rule 14A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The entire amendment pertains to defendant no.3.

¶18

5.Defendant no.3 has been described as “Trident Movies, represented by R.Ravindran” now. Amendment sought to be made is to change this as “R.Ravindran, Trading as Trident Arts”.

¶19

6.Learned counsel for defendants 1 and 2 very fairly submits that she has no serious objection or opposition to this application. Learned counsel also undertakes to file vakalat nama on behalf of defendant no.3 before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ next listing.

¶20

¶21

7.I have perused the affidavit filed in support of this application. The prayer is innocuous and it is imperative that the same is acceded to for the suit to be proceeded with.

¶22

8.The prayer is acceded to and this application is ordered as prayed for.

¶23

9.Counsel for plaintiff undertakes to carry out necessary and consequential amendments latest by 07.09.2018 (Friday). If this order is produced, Registry is directed to permit the counsel on record for the plaintiff to carry out the necessary and consequential amendments today itself, as long as the Registry is approached before 6.00 p.m.

¶24

Sd/-M.S.J 05.09.2018

¶25

//Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2018.

¶26

KY/05.09.2018 COURT OFFICER

¶27

From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Dhayanidhi Alagiri., v. Y Not Studios

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhayanidhi Alagiri., v. Y Not Studios

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

1.G.SETHURAMAN Vs 1. S.Abubakkar Siddiq

Aqua Pump Industries., Vs Amazon Technologies Inc.

M/S.Thalappakatti Naidu Vs Kovai Thalappakattu Briyani

V.S.G.Lungi Company Vs M/S. Jayam Textiles

Indus Ind Bank Limited Vs Mr.Sivakumar

Consim Info Pvt. Ltd. Vs People Interactive I P Ltd.