High CourtsDivision Bench(1892) 12 MAD CK 0021

Mallikarjuna vs Pullaya and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 23 December 1892 · Citation: (1893) ILR (Mad) 319

HON’BLE JUDGES
Parker, J · Muttusami Ayyar, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 83 words
1.

It does not appear that leave to amend was asked for in the Court of First Instance before decree. We do not think that an amendment ought to be allowed on appeal, if by so doing the defendant is likely to be precluded from pleading limitation. Weldon v. Neal L.R. 19 Q.B.D. 394.

2.

Upon the facts stated, therefore, we are of opinion that the amendment asked for should be refused and the plaintiff left to his remedy by a regular suit.