IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27567 of 2008(F)
1. KHADEEJA, D.NO. 12/769,
... Petitioner
2. AAYSHA MUHAMMED, D. NO.12/769,
3. IBRAHIM MOHAMMED,
4. ARIFA MOHAMMED,D. NO.12/769,
Vs
1. THE KERALA POLICE HOUSING AND
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.L.VARGHESE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :16/09/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
W.P.(C) No. 27567 of 2008
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dated: 16-09-2008
JUDGMENT
Heard both sides.
2. The petitioners are the mother and children of one K.E.
Kunju Mohammed, the original plaintiff in O.S. 344 of 2004 on the
file of the I Addl. Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The said suit filed
by K.E. Kunju Mohammed was one for recovery of a sum of Rs.
14,49,282/- from the Kerala Police Housing and Construction
Corporation Limited with interest thereon. After the death of the
original plaintiff the petitioners, four in number, were impleaded as
his legal representatives and addl. plaintiffs 2 to 5. At a stage after
the framing of issues the petitioners filed I.A. 5158 of 2007 under
order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking an amendment of the plaint
restricting the claim under the final bill to Rs. 2,79,043 as against
Rs. 8,48,782/- . The said application was opposed and dismissed as
per the impugned order dated 21-8-2008 holding inter alia that the
said prayer if allowed would adversely affect the counter claim
made by the defendant Corporation.
3. After hearing both sides, I see no reason why the prayer
of the petitioners should not have been granted by the court below.
W.P.(C) No. 27567 of 2008 -:2:-
Probably, the petitioners have a feeling that they would be unable
to give evidence in support of the claim for the entire amount of Rs.
8,48,782/- That may be reason why they were restricting the claim
to Rs. 2,79,043. The petitioners were entitled to do so. By allowing
the said application for amendment the court was not granting a
decree but only permitting the pleadings to be amended. It goes
without saying that upon such amendment of the plaint the
defendant will have further opportunity to file additional written
statement and the suit as well as the counter claim will have to
proceed according to law. Hence, the impugned order so far as it has
refused the amendment of the plaint is set aside . The said
application for amendment will stand allowed. The respondent
Corporation can file an additional written statement within the time
granted by the court below. Parties shall appear before the court
below without any further notice on 24-09-2008.
This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Dated this the 16th day of September 2008.
Sd/-V.Ramkumar, Judge.
ani.
/true copy/