IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 29884 of 2006(G)
1. SHRI.GOPI PILLAI, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SRI.SADANANDAN, AGED 54 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. SMT.RAJAMMA, AGED 59 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :14/11/2006
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.C.NO.29884 OF 2006 (G)
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 14 th day of November, 2006.
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India,
challenging Ext.P3 order passed by learned Munsiff in I.A.1563/06, allowing
respondents to amend the plaint as sought for. Case of petitioner is that
even though Ext.P2 objection was filed, learned Munsiff has not considered
the objection and failed to note that by the amendment, admissions made in
the plaint, are taken away and as a result of the amendment, the criminal
charge laid by the police under Ext.P1 charge sheet is nullified and ,
petitioner has raised a counter claim in the suit and withdrawal of the
admission would effect the counter claim also and in such circumstances,
Ext.P3 order has to be quashed.
2. On hearing learned counsel appearing for petitioner, I do not
find any reason to interfere with Ext.P3 order exercising the extra ordinary
jurisdiction of this court. By the amendment allowed by the court below,
neither the character nor the nature of the suit has been changed. What is
altered by the amendment is only the allegation in the paragraph deleted,
wherein there was a case that compound wall was constructed encroaching a
W.P.C.NO.29884 OF 2006 (G)
2
portion of the road. By deleting that case, no admission on the plaint claim
was taken away. The amendment does not alter the nature or character of
the suit. If the contention of petitioner is that, it would affect the criminal
case, that is not a ground to deny the amendment sought for, if it is
necessary for a just decision of the case. Even if case of petitioner is that
allegations deleted by amendment is an admission which could be made at
the time of evidence. Even according to the petitioner the very same
allegations are asserted in other affidavit filed in the suit and if so, it can be
made use of. There is no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly
dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
bkn
W.P.C.NO.29884 OF 2006 (G)
3