IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3844 of 2010(O)
1. PEETHAMBARAN, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI,
... Petitioner
2. JANARDHANAN OF DO. DO.
Vs
1. K.MATHEW, S/O.K.J.MATHEW,
... Respondent
2. GEETHA PEETHAMBARAN OF KAVIYOOR HOUSE,
3. VIJAYAMMA OF DO. DO.
4. REMA DEVI OF DO. DO.
5. MAYADEVI JANARDHANAN OF DO. DO.
6. PARAMESWARA PILLAI OF DO. DO.
7. SOMANATHAN P & T QUARTERS,
8. LALITHA SOMANATHAN OF DO. DO.
9. AJITH KUMAR OF DO. DO.
10. K.K.USHADEVI AMMA OF DO. DO.
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :08/02/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(c).No.3844 of 2010
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
Defendants 4 to 8 in O.S.No.438 of 2002 on the file of the
Sub Court, Kottayam are the writ petitioners. The said suit
instituted by the respondent herein is one for declaration of title,
recovery of possession and other consequential reliefs. As per
Ext.P5 order dated 18.11.2009 on I.A.No.2441/2009, the court
below has permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint so as to
incorporate the survey number and extent of the property
described in the plaint schedule. It is the said order which is
assailed in this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the
following submissions before me in support of the writ petition.
The defendants had specifically raised in the written
statement about the omission to mention the extent and
survey number of the property described in the plaint
schedule. Still the plaintiff did not amend the plaint
schedule. The application for amendment was filed only
after the plaintiff examined as PW1 was cross-examined.
W.P.(c)No.3844 of 2010
2
This was an application filed belatedly and in gross
violation of proviso to Order VI Rule 7 C.P.C and the court
below ought not have granted the amendment.
3. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above
submissions. It is true that the application for amendment was
filed at a belated stage. But the plaintiff was prompted to file the
application on account of the contentions raised by the
petitioners and the other defendants that the description of the
plaint schedule is vague for want of survey number and extent .
It was the said omission which was sought to be supplied by the
amendment, though the application was filed at the fag end of
the examination of the plaintiff as PW1. The court below has
accepted the explanation offered by the plaintiff regarding the
delay and allowed him to amend the plaint schedule by
incorporating the survey number and extent of the property
described in the plaint schedule. I do not think that the
discretion exercised by the court below was unjustified or was to
the extreme prejudice of the defendants. The defendants are not
taken by surprise in the plaintiff seeking to supply the survey
number and extent of the plaint schedule which was specifically
W.P.(c)No.3844 of 2010
3
the defence raised in the written statement.
I do not find any good reason to interfere with Ext.P5 order
passed by the court below. This writ petition is accordingly
dismissed. It goes without saying that the petitioners will
have the liberty to file an additional statement.
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj