IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22352 of 2009(O)
1. DR.SHYAMALA ASHOK, D/O.SREEDHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.P.AJITH KUMAR, S/O.MALINI,
... Respondent
2. K.P.JYOTHIAN, OF DO.
3. K.P.SREEJESH KUMAR OF DO.
For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL
For Respondent :SRI.K.V.SOHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :01/10/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
W.P.(C).No.22352 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of October 2009
-------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed seeking the
following reliefs.
i) To call for the records leading to
Ext.P6 order and set aside the same.
ii) To declare that Ext.P6 order is
illegal.
iii) To direct the Sub Judge, Thalassery
to give opportunity to the petitioner to be heard
in the matter and pass a speaking order.
iv) To pass such other appropriate writ,
order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit
to grant in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S
No.124 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court,
W.P.(C).No.22352 OF 2009 Page numbers
Thalassery. Suit is one for cancelling a decree
passed in a previous suit by the Sub court,
Ernakulam, and the respondents are the plaintiffs.
The defendant resisted the suit filing a written
statement. Later, the respondents/ plaintiffs
filed an application for amendment of the plaint.
Ext.P3 is the copy of that application. The court
below allowed that application stating that no
counter was filed by the defendant. Propriety and
correctness of the order passed by the court below
allowing the amendment application is challenged in
the writ petition invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction vested with this court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
3. I heard the counsel on both sides.
The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs
fairly submitted that a counter had been filed by
the petitioner/defendant, but it was not brought to
W.P.(C).No.22352 OF 2009 Page numbers
the notice of the court when Ext.P3 application was
considered. It is noticed that the court below has
not applied its mind to the amendment sought for
and a cryptic order has been passed that ‘the
counter not filed the petition is allowed’. For
that reason itself, the order of the court below is
liable to be set aside. Setting aside that order,
I direct the court below to consider the merit of
the amendment application in the light of the
counter filed by the defendant. Writ petition is
disposed as indicated above.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv