IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12427 of 2008(D)
1. HALIDA BEGUM.D/O.FATHEMA BEEVI, RESIDING
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DALIDA BHAI, D/O.FATHIMA BEEVI, AGED 44
... Respondent
2. AJAYA KUMAR, S/O.SADASIVAN, AGED 45
For Petitioner :SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
For Respondent :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :10/06/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
W.P.(C) NO. 12427 OF 2008
===========================
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.482/2004 on
the file of Additional Munsiff Court, Nedumangad.
Under Ext.P7 order, application filed under Order
VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed
without considering the application. The order
reads:-
“This is the petition
filed by the plaintiff in
this case to remove the
case on one pretext or
other. Amendment
petition is dismissed.
There is no ground to
allow this petition and
it is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.”
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner
W.P.(C012427/2008 2
and respondents were heard.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner
submitted that the necessity for amendment
application was on account of the acts of the
defendants which was brought to the notice of the
court by the report submitted by the Commissioner
and in such circumstance, learned Munsiff should
have allowed the application. On going through
Ext.P7 order, it is clear that learned Munsiff has
not considered the application in the true spirit
of the provisions under Order VI of Rule 17 of Code
of Civil Procedure. The question whether
amendment is necessary in the nature and
circumstance of the case was not considered. In
such circumstance, Ext.P7 order is quashed. Learned
Munsiff is directed to dispose I.A.3009/2007,
afresh after hearing the counsel appearing for both
sides on merit.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006