REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAJ NARAIN DUBEY Appellant

V/S

Additional District Judge, Unnao Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PIRGONDA HONGONDA PATIL V. KALGONDA SHIDGONDA PATIL AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
NIBARAN CHANDRA BAG VS. MAHENDRA NATH CHUGHUL DECEASED AFTER HIM HIS HEIR AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE [REFERRED TO]
RUKUMANAND BAIROLIYA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STEEL TUBES LIMITED VS. GUJARAT STEEL TUBES MAZDOOR SABHA [REFERRED TO]
GAJANAN JAIKISHAN JOSHI VS. PRABHAKAR MOHANLAL KALWAR [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIKANT REVCHAND BHOJWANI VS. PRATAPSING MOHANSINGH PARDESHI [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. PRAVINBHAI JASBHAI PATEL [REFERRED TO]
PEPSI FOODS LIMITED VS. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE [REFERRED TO]
RENA DREGO VS. LALCHAND SONI [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRABHUSHAN VS. BENI PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KASHINATH RAVAT VS. VINAYAK N JOSHI [REFERRED TO]
SAVITA CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DYES AND CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRABAI BHAUSAHEB KEVATE VS. RAICHAND DHANRAJ LUNJA [REFERRED TO]
AJAIB SINGH VS. SIRHIND CO OPERATIVE MARKETING CUM PROCESSING SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HIMMAT SINGH CHAHAR [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN AMBA PRASAD AGNIHOTRI VS. BHASKAR BALWANT AHER DEAD [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS. I O B STAFF CANTEEN WORKERS UNION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MILIND [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJENDRA PRABHU [REFERRED TO]
ESTRALLA RUBBER VS. DASS ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
OUSEPH MATHAI VS. M ABDUL KHADIR [REFERRED TO]
NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION GORAKHPUR VS. BHAGWAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
PEETHANI SURYANARAYANA VS. REPAKA VENKATA RAMANA KISHORE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.05.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Unnao rejecting petitioner's revision against the trial court's order rejecting amendment sought in written statement.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at revisional stage also amendment can be allowed and since petitioner came to know subsequently that no firm or company in the name as described by plaintiff in the array of parties existed, hence he moved amendment bringing this fact on record.

(3.) However, a perusal of impugned amendment shows that petitioner intends to introduce contradictory plea inasmuch as in para 1 of written statement filed by petitioner he has not disputed the very authority or status of plaintiff to file suit or his ownership on the property in question but what he has said is that he is not the sole owner and, therefore, not entitled to file suit in his individual capacity. However by means of amendment sought to be introduced he has sought to plead that plaintiff has no right to file suit at all.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAJ NARAIN DUBEY Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, UNNAO

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address