IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37250 of 2008(H)
1. THANKAMMA,
... Petitioner
2. SASIKUMAR, -DO-
Vs
1. PONNAMMA,
... Respondent
2. OMANA, HARIBHAVANAM,
3. RAMAKRISHNAN,
4. RENUKA DEVI,
5. NISHA, -DO-
6. ANOOP, -DO-
7. BALACHANDRAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :17/12/2008
O R D E R
K.P. Balachandran, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C)No.37250 of 2008 H
--------------------------
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are 2nd defendant and additional 3rd
Defendant in O.S.No. 373/03 on the file of the
Munsiff’s Court, Adoor. Respondents, who are the
plaintiffs in the said suit, filed I.A.No.226/07
for amendment of the plaint alleging that they
described plaint items 2 and 3 belonging to the
petitioners as having an extent of 30 cents each
comprised respectively in Sy.Nos.246/4 and 246/5 on
an approximation; that they could ascertain the
exact extent only on perusing Settlement Deed
No.2060/00 executed by defendants in favour of
their son additional 3rd defendant Sasikumar, which
was produced by the said Sasikumar in the connected
suit O.S.No.350/03 and that therefore, they may be
permitted to amend the schedule to the plaint
correcting the extent of the property under items 2
and 3 respectively as 10.40 Ares and 9.20 Ares.
WPC 37250/08 2
Exhibit P7 is the said settlement deed executed by
the original defendants in favour of their son
Sasikumar and the description of the properties
thereunder shows that the extent of property in
Sy.No.246/4 is 10.40 Ares and the extent of
property in Sy.No. 246/5 is 9.20 Ares. Thus, it is
evident that the amendment sought for was to
incorporate the exact extent of the property that
the defendants have, which is described as items 2
and 3 properties. The court below, probably, after
verifying the document as well, has allowed the
amendment application vide Exhibit P6 order
observing that what is sought to be amended and
incorporated is the extent of properties and that
will not change the nature and character of the
suit. The amendment so allowed by the court below
cannot be faulted and for a proper adjudication of
the dispute, it was highly necessary to have the
plaint amended.
This writ petition, assailing Exhibit P6 order
allowing the amendment application, is devoid of
WPC 37250/08 3
merit in the circumstances and hence, it is
dismissed.
17th December, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
tkv