Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Jagannatha Shenoy vs M.Krishna Bhatt on 29 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2841 of 2010(O)


1. JAGANNATHA SHENOY, AGED 40 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ANANTHESWARA KAMMATH, AGED 71 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. M.KRISHNA BHATT, S/O.LATE VITTALA BHAT,
                       ...       Respondent

2. M.GANESH BHATT, S/O.M.LAXMAN BHAT,

3. SRIMAD ANANTESHWAR TEMPLE, MANJESHWAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :29/01/2010

 O R D E R
                        V. RAMKUMAR, J.
                  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                    W.P. (C) No. 2841 of 2010
                  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                        Dated: 29-01-2010

                            JUDGMENT

The Writ Petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 240 of

2009 on the file of the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Kasaragod. The

said suit as originally filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein was

one for accounts and for a decree of mandatory injunction

directing the defendants to convene the meeting of the committee

concerned and devotees of the 3rd respondent temple and place

the audited balance sheet of the kumbabishekam function within

the time fixed by the Court. Since the plaint did not contain

averments which were sufficient to justify the decree for

mandatory injunction which was also claimed in the suit as

originally filed, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 2162 of 2009 to

incorporate the necessary amendment to the plaint to support the

additional relief of mandatory injunction. The said application was

W.P. (C) No. 2841 of 2010 -:2:-

opposed by the writ petitioners contending inter alia that the

proposed amendment would change the nature and character of

the suit apart from being belated. The court below overruled the

said objections and allowed the amendment as prayed for as per

Ext.P7 order dated 8-12-2009. It is the said order which is assailed

in this Writ Petition.

2. This is not a case where a suit for accounts was

subsequently converted into one for mandatory injunction. The

suit as originally laid was also for a decree of mandatory

injunction for which the plaintiff wanted to incorporate the

averments in support of the said relief. The amendment sought

for would not in any way change the nature and character of the

suit because the suit continues to be one for accounts and for

mandatory injunction as aforesaid. Under these circumstances, I

am not inclined to accept the contention of the Writ Petitioner that

the proposed amendment would change the nature and character

of the suit. Ext.P7 order does not suffer from any illegality or

W.P. (C) No. 2841 of 2010 -:3:-

irregularity so as to warrant interference by this Court. The

petitioners herein can file an additional written statement and can

also substantiate their contentions on the merits to have the suit

dismissed. I see no grounds to interfere with Ext.P7 order. This

Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR,
(JUDGE)

/TRUE COPY/
ani.

P.S.TO JUDGE


Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.170 seconds.