M.Shanmugam Pillai, v. P.Arumugam
Case brief
What is this about?
In review petitions concerning a dismissed second appeal in a specific performance suit, the court considered amendments to the plaint seeking refund of advance payments. Rejecting the plea citing lack of justification for the long delay and non-requirement under specific provisions, the miscellaneous petitions were dismissed.
What the court decided
REV.APLC(MD) No.70 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )
Wednesday, the Eighth day of January Two Thousand Twenty
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.M.P(MD) Nos.3895 and 3896 of 2019 IN REV.APLC(MD) No.70 of 2018
M.SHANMUGAM PILLAI ... PETITIONER/ REVIEW PETITIONER IN BOTH THE PETITIONS
Vs
P.ARUMUGAM ... RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS
PRAYER IN C.M.P(MD) No.3895 of 2019:
Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to permit the petitioner TO AMEND THE PLAINT in OS.No.301 of 2003 on the file of Sub Court, Tuticorin and thus render justice.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for amendment of plaint seeking refund of advance amount can be permitted after a long delay in the proceedings.
Whether the proviso to Order 16 Rule 17 CPC or Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act permits filing such amendment claim at this stage without sufficient explanation for the delay.
Whether the petitioner can take advantage of the clause allowing amendment at any stage when no justification for the delay is provided.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M.SHANMUGAM PILLAI
- respondent
P.ARUMUGAM
Coram
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court