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
