SHAILESHBHAI OCCHAVLAL KADAKIYA Vs. PANNALAL MITHALAL DARJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that : -

(2.) So far as the facts are concerned, it has emerged from the record that father of present respondents No.1 to 3 filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.93 of 2004 against present petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the original plaintiffs, i.e. present respondents have tried to cure the defect at appellate stage and the learned first appellate Court has erroneously allowed the original plaintiffs to cure the defect at appellate stage. Learned Advocate for the petitioner also submitted that at appellate stage, such permission ought not have been granted. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, in support of his submission, relied on the provisions under Order 6 Rules 14, 15 and 18 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the observations in the decision in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3353. Except the said submissions, any other contention is not raised.