Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
8 judgments · newest first · showing 1–8
The plaintiffs, A.K. Ghosh & Co., filed a commercial suit for unpaid dues and the defendants filed a counter‑claim. The defendants served the counter‑claim on 18 July 2023, but the plaintiffs sought leave to file a written statement only on 15 March 2024, well beyond the statutory period. The …
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and the defendant filed a written statement followed by a counter‑claim. The trial court allowed the counter‑claim, but the High Court quashed it, prompting a reference to the Supreme Court on the interpretation of Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC. …
Vasanti purchased a residential property on 26 June 1982 from the heirs of Ramnathan Chettiar and sought a declaration of title and possession. The original occupant, Venugopal (deceased), claimed he had a 1975 agreement of sale with the same owner, had paid part consideration, taken possession and …
The respondents filed a suit for partition of property in 2004. The appellant filed her written statement in 2006 and later discovered a 1993 will that she claimed affected the ownership of the suit property. On 1 March 2007, after the trial had commenced and a witness had been examined, she applied …
The plaintiff, Babu, owned suit land and filed a suit to set aside a deed of sale executed under a purported Power of Attorney. The plaintiff died during the suit and his heirs were brought on record. An amendment to the plaint was allowed in 2004. Subsequently, the eighth respondent (an heir and …
The appellant, Chander Kanta Bansal, sought to amend her written statement 18 years after a 1986 suit for a right of passage was filed, invoking Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to introduce a 1982 partition agreement. The trial court allowed the amendment, but the Delhi High Court set aside that order, …
The State Bank of Hyderabad sued the Town Municipal Council for an injunction concerning a plot it had purchased at public auction. During the proceedings the bank sought leave to amend its plaint, which was initially allowed by the appellate court. The High Court set aside that order, relying on …
The appellant challenged the trial court’s acceptance of the respondent’s written statement, which was filed on 10 July 2004, well beyond the 30‑day normal period and the 90‑day maximum period prescribed under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as amended by the 2002 Amendment …
