Gujarat High Court
CRA/1113/2001 of ANSUYABEN BABULAL Vs UMEDBHAI CHHAGANLAL SOLANKI on 7 November 2001
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 1113 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 1113 of 2001
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- ANSUYABEN BABULALVersus UMEDBHAI CHHAGANLAL SOLANKI -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR YATIN SONI for Petitioners No. 1-2 MR KISHOR M PAUL for Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL
Date of decision: 07/11/2001
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Rule. Mr.K.M.Paul, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.
2. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
The petitioners are the defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.179 of 1995 in Small Cause Court, Rajkot. They gave an application for leave to amend the written statement saying that by mistake in para-3 of the written statement, the averments made in para-3 of the plaint were admitted. It is obvious from the averments made in other paragraphs of the written statement that the petitioners had no intention to admit the averments in question. It was an obvious mistake, which was sought to be corrected by the amendment.
3. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The application Exh.42 for leave to amend made by the petitioners is allowed and leave to amend is granted as prayed for in the said application. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
�����(M.C.Patel,J.)
vrp