IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS No. 644 of 2001(C)
1. M.SREENIVASAN S/O.MUTHUSWAMY,HINDU,
... Petitioner
2. SMT.SANKARA AVADI AMMAL D/O.RENGASWAMY,
3. SMT.P.PITCHAMMAL D/O.KAMALAMMAL,HINDU,
Vs
1. SMT.RAJAMMA W/O.KARUNAKARAN PILLAI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M. RAMASWAMY PILLAI
For Respondent : No Appearance
Coram
Dated : / /
O R D E R
……..L…….T…….T…….T…….T….T..T…….T……..J…
.SP 2
.TM 3
.BM 2
R. BHASKARAN, J.@@
j
—————————-@@
j
A.S.Nos.644/2001,653/2001, 654/2001 & 676/2001@@
j
—————————–@@
j
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2005@@
j
J U D G M E N T@@
jCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
((HDR 0
AS.644,653,654,676/201
-#-@@
j
))
.HE 1
These four appeals arise out of four suits filed
before the Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The
suits were filed for recovery of possession of buildings.
Earlier the plaintiffs had filed Rent Control Petitions
for recovery of possession and those petitions were
disposed of by stating that the denial of title by the
tenant was bonafide and the plaintiffs were directed to
file regular suits in civil court. It is on that basis
that the present suits are filed.
2. The trial court dismissed the suits finding
that the plaintiffs have not produced the required
documents and the case set up by the plaintiffs is not
established. After filing these appeals the appellants
filed applications for amendment of plaints. After
hearing both sides this court allowed the applications and
the amendment of plaints was carried out by incorporating
necessary amendment in the respective plaints. The
appellants also produced large number of documents as
additional evidence in the appeal.
3. When these appeals came up for hearing I heard
the learned counsel on both sides. It is now agreed that
since this court has allowed amendment of plaints the
respective defendant has to be granted an opportunity for
filing additional written statements and therefore the
suits have to be remanded to the trial court for fresh
trial and disposal. The application for receiving
additional evidence is not opposed and therefore they are
accepted as additional evidence. On a reading of the
affidavit in support of the petition to receive additional
document I am satisfied that the conditions under Order 41
Rule 27 of C.P.C. are satisfied and that it is highly
necessary to receive these documents for a satisfactory
and complete disposal of the suits. Therefore the
petition is allowed.
4. In these appeals since the plaints are amended
the respective defendant has to be given an opportunity to
file additional written statements and further opportunty
to produce counter documents. Further trial of the suits
will also be required. In the above circumstances the
only way to do justice between the parties is to remand
the suits to the trial court.
These appeals are therefore allowed and the suits
are remanded to the trial court for fresh trial and
disposal. Parties shall appear before the trial court on
15-2-2005. Since the suits are of the year 1994 and the
plaintiffs are in the second round of litigation the trial
court may dispose of the suits as expeditiously as
possible and preferably within six months from the date of
appearance of parties. The parties shall bear their costs
in this appeal.
.PL 65
R.Bhaskaran, Judge.
MS
.PA
……………………………………L…….T…….T………..T….J
R. BHASKARAN, J.@@
j
————————-@@
j
A.S.No. 644 of 2001-C @@
j
A.S.No.653 of 2001-E@@
j
A.S.No.654 of 2001-E &@@
j
A.S.No.676 of 2001-D@@
j
————————-
@@
j
@@
j
J U D G M E N T@@
jCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
@@
j
@@
j
19th January, 2005@@
j
@@
j
——————————
@@
j
@@
j
@@
j