Ajith Krishna vs Sudhakaran on 30 November, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 34300 of 2009(O)


1. AJITH KRISHNA, AGED 27 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ANILA RANI, AGED 23 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. SUDHAKARAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SARALAMMA, W/O.SUDHAKARAN,

3. PRASANTHA KUMARI,

4. KISHORE, S/O.LATE DAMODHARAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SYAM J SAM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :30/11/2009

 O R D E R
              S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                  -------------------------------
              W.P.(C).NO.34300 OF 2009 (O)
                -----------------------------------
       Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009

                       J U D G M E N T

Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.167 of 2002 on

the file of the Munsiff Court, Punalur. Suit was filed for

partition and separate possession, and the respondents are the

defendants. Respondents resisted the suit by filing a written

statement. An application for amendment was moved by the

plaintiffs seeking to incorporate allegations in the plaint that a

sale deed executed by the 3rd defendant for and on behalf of

the plaintiffs, when they were minors, in favour of the 2nd

defendant, was ab initio void and also for an additional relief

for setting aside that sale deed. That amendment application

was dismissed by the court by Ext.P4 order dated 15.3.2006.

Challenge against that Ext.P4 order by way of a revision was

dismissed by this Court by Ext.P5 order. While passing Ext.P5

order, it was also noticed that the suit had already been

WPC.34300/09 2

dismissed for default. On the application moved by the

petitioners/plaintiffs, the suit dismissed for default was

restored to file vide Ext.P6 order. Now the petitioners have

again approached this Court challenging the propriety and

correctness of Ext.P4 order declining the request for

amendment of the plaint.

3. I heard the counsel for the petitioners. Correctness of

Ext.P4 order challenged before this Court had been declined

vide Ext.P5 order in the earlier revision. Merely because the

suit has been restored to file, petitioners will not get any right

to canvass the propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order again

before this Court by way of a writ petition.

Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp