IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32555 of 2007(A)
1. JOY VARGHESE.M., S/O.M.C.VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
2. RAMESH.R.K., S/O.LATE R.KARUNAKARAN,
3. MOHANDAS.V.P., AGED 54,
4. SATHISH CHARLEY, S/O.C.G.CHARLEY,
5. VRIJA KISHORE.K., S/O.LATE
6. AJITH.K.T., S/O.K.R.PURUSHOTHAMAN,
7. BRINDH KUMAR.R., S/O.LATE R.BALAN,
8. FRANCIS.A.V., S/O.LATE R.BALAN,
9. GANGADHARAN.P.V., S/O.LATE P.V.SAMI,
10. NAMBIAR.M.N., S/O.LATE NARAYANAN
11. PREMKUMAR.P.A., S/O.P.A.BHASKARAN,
12. RAGHUVEERAN.D., S/O.DAMODARAN BALIGA,
13. RAJKUMAR.R., S/O.LATE RAMARAO,
14. SUNDERDAS.P., S/O.LATE P.KRISHNAN,
15. THOMAS.C.I., S/O.LATE LUKOSE THOMAS,
Vs
1. THE CALICUT COSMOPOLITAN CLUB,
... Respondent
2. THE PRESIDENT, CALICUT COSMOPOLITAN
3. D.V.NARAYANAN, S/O.D.V.NAMBOODIRIPAD,
4. MOHAMMED SALI.R.P., S/O.LATE
5. ABDUL GAFOOR.K., FATHER'S NAME
6. S.G.VENKIATACHALAM, S/O.LATE
7. KUNHIMOIDEENKOYA.M., FATHER'S NAME
8. MUSTHAFA.K.M., FATHER'S NAME NOT
9. NARAYANAN.K., S/O.KALYANA KRISHNAN,
10. SUNIL J.SHAH, S/O.JITHENDRA SHAH,
11. DR.C.PREMRAJ, S/O.LATE C.RAJARAM,
12. MOHANDAS, S/O.LATE DR.MOHANDAS.K.,
13. B.M.ASU, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
14. RAM MOHAN KAMMATH, FATHER'S NAME NOT
15. VALLABHAS GOVINDJEE, S/O.GOVINDHJI
16. BAJU SEBASTIAN, FATHER'S NAME NOT
17. K.C.JAMSHED AHAMMAD, S/O.MOIDEEN,
18. C.K.GOVINDRAJ, S/O.A.PADMANABHAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :07/08/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
WP(C).No. 32555 OF 2007
............................................
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff in O.S.347 of 2004 on the file of Sub Court,
Kozhikode filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of
India challenging Ext.P2 order passed in I.A.2746 of 2007, an
application filed under Rule 17 of Order VI of Code of Civil
Procedure, for amendment of the plaint.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and
respondents were heard.
3. Ext.P2 order shows that the application for amendment
of the plaint was rejected by learned Sub Judge for the reason
that the affidavit in support of I.A. 2746 of 2007 was filed only by
4th plaintiff and plaintiffs 6 and 8 to 15 had aquiesed to the act of
suspension of the membership and therefore, the petition for
amendment of the plaint is not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that
learned Sub Judge held so, based on the counter filed by third
respondent to the effect that plaintiffs 6 to 15 except 7 and 8
accepted the punishment and paid the fine. It was submitted
that fine was paid only under protest and in such circumstances,
WP(C) 32555/2007 2
amendment application should have been allowed. When the
amendment was necessitated due to the subsequent event, it
cannot be said that plaint cannot be allowed to be amended
seeking additional prayer. True, such an amendment could be for
all the plaintiffs. As learned Sub Judge dismissed the application
only on the ground that fourth plaintiff alone filed affidavit in
support of the amendment of the plaint sought for, if other
plaintiffs are also seeking amendment of the plaint, it could be
allowed. In such circumstances, Ext.P2 order is quashed.
Learned Sub Judge is directed to reconsider I.A.2746 of 2007
and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Plaintiffs are
permitted to file affidavits of plaintiffs 6 and 8 to 15 in support
of the amendment of the plaint sought for.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-