Chotima Bibi Vs. Abdul Munab

Chotima Bibi vs Abdul Munab

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 08, 2015

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1178650

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1178650
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: D. Hariparanthaman
Decided On: Oct 08, 2015
Case Number: C.R.P. No. 3720 of 2015 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015
Subject: FERA

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

FERA

Key legal issue: FERA

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chotima Bibi

Respondent

Abdul Munab

Excerpt

.....o.s.no.89 of 2013 on the file of the learned district munsif, vandavasi, wherein the revision petitioner herein is the first defendant. 3. while so, the revision petitioner has filed an application in i.a.no.154 of 2013 in o.s.no.28 of 2013 under order 6 rule 17 cpc for amendment of the plaint. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the said application in i.a.no.154 of 2013 was filed much before the filing of the written statement and it was not hit by any limitation. 4. however, the trial court by an order dated 30.09.2013 dismissed the said application in i.a.no.154 of 2013 in o.s.no.28 of 2013 and hence, the revision petitioner was forced to approach this court by filing the present civil revision petition. 5. heard both sides. 6. it is not in dispute that the trial is yet to commence. hence, without going into the merits of the issues, i am of the considered view that the amendment sought for in the plaint, prior to the commencement of the trial has to be allowed in the normal course, particularly when the same was not hit by any limitation. further, it is not the case of the respondent that the amendment is hit by limitation. 7. in these circumstances, i am inclined to set aside the order dated 30.09.2013 made in i.a.no.154 of 2013 in o.s.no.28 of 2013 and accordingly, the application in i.a.no.154 of 2013 is allowed. consequently, the respondent herein is granted time to file additional written statement. 8. at this juncture, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for both sides that the suit in o.s.no.28 of 2013 and o.s.no.89 of 2013 can be tried together and the trial court can be directed to dispose of both the suits within a stipulated time period. 9. considering the submissions made by both sides, the trial court is directed to try the suits in o.s.no.28 of 2013 and o.s.no.89 of 2013 jointly and dispose of the same within a period of nine (9) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. the.....

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 30.09.2013 made in I.A.No.154 of 2013 in O.S.No.28 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Vandavasi, Thiruvannamalai District and consequently permit the petitioner to amend the plaint schedule as prayed for in the above said I.A.No.154 of 2013 in O.S.No.28 of 2013.)

1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.28 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Vandavasi. The respondent herein is the defendant therein.

2. The respondent herein as plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.89 of 2013 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Vandavasi, wherein the revision petitioner herein is the first defendant.

3. While so, the revision petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.154 of 2013 in O.S.No.28 of 2013 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the said application in I.A.No.154 of 2013 was filed much before the filing of the written statement and it was not hit by any limitation.

4. However, the Trial Court by an order dated 30.09.2013 dismissed the said application in I.A.No.154 of 2013 in O.S.No.28 of 2013 and hence, the revision petitioner was forced to approach this Court by filing the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Heard both sides.

6. It is not in dispute that the trial is yet to commence. Hence, without going into the merits of the issues, I am of the considered view that the amendment sought for in the plaint, prior to the commencement of the trial has to be allowed in the normal course, particularly when the same was not hit by any limitation. Further, it is not the case of the respondent that the amendment is hit by limitation.

7. In these circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the order dated 30.09.2013 made in I.A.No.154 of 2013 in O.S.No.28 of 2013 and accordingly, the application in I.A.No.154 of 2013 is allowed. Consequently, the respondent herein is granted time to file additional written statement.

8. At this juncture, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for both sides that the suit in O.S.No.28 of 2013 and O.S.No.89 of 2013 can be tried together and the Trial Court can be directed to dispose of both the suits within a stipulated time period.

9. Considering the submissions made by both sides, the Trial Court is directed to try the suits in O.S.No.28 of 2013 and O.S.No.89 of 2013 jointly and dispose of the same within a period of nine (9) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2015 Same Parties Chotima Bibi vs Abdul Munab Same Subject FERA Same Judge D. Hariparanthaman