Loading...

C.P.Khader Kutty vs M/S. Aegis Crm Solutions Pvt.Ltd on 7 February, 2011

Kerala High Court
C.P.Khader Kutty vs M/S. Aegis Crm Solutions Pvt.Ltd on 7 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP (RC).No. 66 of 2011(O)


1. C.P.KHADER KUTTY, S/O. CHUNDAMVEETTIL
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SUHARA KHADER, W/O. C.P.KHADER KUTTY,

                        Vs



1. M/S. AEGIS CRM SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD.,
                       ...       Respondent

2. MR. AMIT BHATNAGAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

 Dated :07/02/2011

 O R D E R
                    PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
                  N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
         ------------------------------------------------
            O. P. (Rent Control) No.66 of 2011
         ------------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 7th day of February, 2011

                         JUDGMENT

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

Under challenge in this Original Petition filed by the

Landlord is Ext.P6 order passed by the Rent Control Court,

Tirur by which an application for amendment of the counter

statement filed by the tenant/respondent stands allowed. By

virtue of the amendment presently allowed, the words

“lease and licence” used by the tenant while referring to the

arrangement between the parties stand corrected as “leave

and licence”. The learned Rent Control Court accepted the

case of the tenant that it was by a mistake that the words

“lease and licence” were used instead of the words “leave

and licence”. According to Sri.Jamsheed Hafiz, the learned

counsel for the petitioners, the amendment presently

O. P. (Rent Control) No.66 of 2011 -2-

allowed will enable the respondents to get away from the

impact of fatal admissions made by them in the original

counter statement regarding the nature of the demise.

2. We have carefully gone through Ext.P6 order. We do

not think that the petitioner has made out a case for

invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 227 for interfering with Ext.P6. The ratio of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s Modi Spinning &

Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another v. M/s Ladha Ram & Co.

(1977 SC 680) is to the effect that amendment of the

written statement should not be allowed if the same will

enable the defendant to get away from the impact of fatal

admissions made by him in the original written statement.

Having examined Ext.P6 again in the light of the above

judgment of the Supreme Court, we are unable to find any

fatal admissions made in the original counter statement to

be covered by the above judgment. The O.P.(RC) will stand

O. P. (Rent Control) No.66 of 2011 -3-

dismissed.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
kns/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information