IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33460 of 2009(O)
1. SASIDHARAN, PROPRIETOR, SON OF
... Petitioner
2. K.P.GIRIJAKUMARI, PROPRIETOR,
Vs
1. THE CHIEF MANAGER,
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :20/11/2009
O R D E R
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.33460 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 20th November, 2009
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.364 of 2006
on the file of the Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara against the dismissal of
some applications filed by them in the suit. Suit is one for
compensation and at the stage when the suit came up in the list for
trial, petitioners moved an application for impleadment of two more
defendants, another for amendment of the plaint and the third one
for removal of the case from the list. All those applications were
dismissed by the learned Munsiff. Propriety and correctness of those
orders were challenged in the writ petition.
2. Notice given, the respondents have entered appearance. I
heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. Plaintiffs prosecuted the suit as party in person and
previously an application for amendment of the plaint moved by them
was returned to cure defects, but, it could not be represented within
time is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. A
fresh petition was therefore filed for amendment of the plaint and
another for impleadment of two more persons as additional
defendants as their presence was found necessary for a fair and
proper disposal of the suit. Learned Munsiff dismissed the applications
W.P.C.No.33460/09 – 2 –
for the reason that the case has been already included in the special
list for trial. The applications were not considered on merits is further
submission of the counsel. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that entire evidence in the case is over and
the case is posted for judgment tomorrow. It is further submitted by
the counsel that the previous application for amendment was
dismissed as not pressed, and it was not a case of returning for
curing of the defects. Endorsement made in P1, copy of the previous
amendment application indicating that it was not pressed. is relied by
the counsel to substantiate his submission. Having regard to the
submissions made by the counsel and considering the facts and
circumstances presented, I find no impropriety or illegality in the
orders passed by the learned Munsiff declining the amendment
application and also the petition for impleadment of additional
defendants in the suit. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is
closed.
srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE