Full Text
Translation output
A-12
% 25.07.2011
Present: Mr. Prateek Chauhdary, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Rohilla, Advocate for the respondent.
+ CM(M) No. 387/2011
*
This petition has impugned the order dated 09.02.2011 vide which the apphcation of the defendant seeking amendment in his written statement had been dismissed.
The present suit had been filed by the mother-in-law of the petitioner seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against her daughter-in-law. After some arguments, it has been agreed between the parties that the petitioner/defendant will press his plea in the court below seeking an additional issue to be framed on the competency of the deceased Govind Singh to execute his Will in the year 1993 when he had already partitioned the property in
% 25.07.2011
Present: Mr. Prateek Chauhdary, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Rohilla, Advocate for the respondent.
+ CM(M) No. 387/2011
*
This petition has impugned the order dated 09.02.2011 vide which the apphcation of the defendant seeking amendment in his written statement had been dismissed.
The present suit had been filed by the mother-in-law of the petitioner seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against her daughter-in-law. After some arguments, it has been agreed between the parties that the petitioner/defendant will press his plea in the court below seeking an additional issue to be framed on the competency of the deceased Govind Singh to execute his Will in the year 1993 when he had already partitioned the property in
JUDGMENT
1982. This issue shall be framed by the trial Judge in addition to the issues already framed and the parties will be permitted to lead evidence on this issue. With these directions, the petition is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J. JULY 25, 2011 a 2011:DHC:7773