Kerala High Court
Against The Order Dated ... vs Unknown on 1 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942
OP(C).No.272 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2020 IN I.A.NO.1631/2019 IN OS
187/2012 OF SUB COURT,ATTINGAL
----------
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 2 TO 4 & ADDL. DEFENDANTS 5 TO
10:
1 V.SURESH
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN CHETTIYAR,
HOUSE NO. M.P 1/738/A, MANACATTU THOPPIL PUTHEN
VEEDU, MUNDAKKAL MURI, MURUKKUMPUZHA,
VEILOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2 SULABHA,
AGED 53 YEARS
D/O. LATE VELAYUDHAN CHETTIYAR, HOUSE NO. M.P.
1/738/A, MANACATTU THOPPIL PUTHEN VEEDU, MUNDAKKAL
MURI, MURUKKUMPUZHA, VEILOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU
TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
3 S. RADHA,
AGED 57 YEARS
D/O. SARASWATHI AMMAL, HOUSE NO. M.P. 1/738/A,
MANACATTU THOPPIL PUTHEN VEEDU, MUDAKKAL MURI,
MURUKKUMPUZHA, VEILOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
4 KRISHNAN CHETTIYAR,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. VELAYUDHAN CHETTIYAR, HOUSE NO. M.P. 1/738/A,
MANACATTU THOPPIL PUTHEN VEEDU, MUNDAKKAL MURI,
MURUKKUMPUZHA, VEILOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
5 LEELAMMAL,
AGED 66 YEARS
D/O. SARASWATHY AMMAL, HOUSE NO. M.P. 1/738/A,
MANACATTU THOPPIL PUTHEN VEEDU, MUNDAKKAL MURI,
MURUKKUMPUZHA, VEILOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
OP(C).No.272 OF 2021
6 SUBHADRA,
AGED 64 YEARS
D/O. SARASWATHY AMMAL, HOUSE NO. M.P 1/738/A,
MANACATTU THOPPIL PUTHEN VEEDU, MUNDAKKAL MURI,
MURUKKUMPUZHA, VEILOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU
TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
7 BABY
AGED 62 YEARS
D/O. SARASWATHY AMMAL, HOUSE NO. M.P.1/738/A,
MANACATTU THOPPIL PUTHEN VEEDU, MUNDAKKAL MURI,
MURUKKUMPUZHA, VEILOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU
TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
8 VIJAYAN CHETTIYAR,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. VELAYUDHAN CHETTIYAR, HOUSE NO. M.P. 1/738/A,
MANACATTU THOPPIL PUTHEN VEEDU, MUNDAKKAL MURI,
MURUKKUMPUZHA, VEILOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU
TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
9 AMBILY,
AGED 55 YEARS
D/O. SARASWATHY AMMAL, HOUSE NO. M.P. 1/738/A,
MANACATTU THOPPIL PUTHEN VEEDU, MUNDAKKAL MURI,
MURUKKUMPUZHA, VEILOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU
TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
SRI.N.KUTTAPPAN THAZHASSERY
RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS/ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS 2 TO 4:
1 HELEN MARY ABRAHAM
TRIO COTTAGE, HOUSE NO. 4, NEAR FIRE STATION ROAD,
KOLLAM, PIN-691 001
2 JEAN GOMEZ,
TRIO COTTAGE, HOUSE NO. 4, NEAR FIRE STATION ROAD,
KOLLAM, PIN-691 001
3 ANU PIUS,
KRIPA, TC 30/1892 (1), PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 024
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
==================
O. P. (C) No.272 of 2021
==================
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2021
JUDGMENT
The dismissal of an application seeking
amendment of the written statement is under
challenge in this original petition.
2. The trial in the suit was over and arguments
notes were also filed; it is at that stage the
application was filed seeking amendment of the
written statement. The amendment sought for relates
to paragraph 9 in the written statement. The said
paragraph in the written statement, as originally
filed, reads thus:-
"(9) The averments made in the
paragraphs 1 and 2 of the plaint are admitted."
O. P. (C) No.272 of 2021
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the plaint refers to
the title of the plaintiff and his father
Sri.Lancylad P. Gomez over the plaint schedule
property. As per the amendment the petitioners seek
for deletion of the above and to incorporate a
paragraph challenging the title of the petitioner's
father Sri.Lancylad P. Gomez. The learned counsel
for the petitioner relies on judgments of the Apex
Court as well as this Court to contend that
amendments necessary to determine the real issue
involved in the suit are to be liberally allowed
notwithstanding the stage of the suit.
4. As noticed supra, the amendment sought is
totally contrary to the stand taken by the
petitioners during the entire suit including
evidence and till the final hearing stage. The
O. P. (C) No.272 of 2021
amendment is not to correct a mistake or omission
or addition of facts on existing facts, as it could
be put, to take shelter under the judgments relied
on by the petitioner, but to adopt a case of denial
of title from that of admission of title. At this
stage of the suit, I do not think it appropriate to
entertain the original petition for consideration
of the amendment in the manner as sought for.
Leaving open the right of the petitioners to
challenge the order on IA 1631/2019 in the appeal
if any, that may be filed against the decree in the
suit, this original petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. to Judge
OP(C).No.272 OF 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.
187/2012 DATED 25.07.2012 BEFORE THE COURT
OF THE SUB JUDGE, ATTINGAL.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT ALONG
WITH THE COUNTER CLAIM.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION
I.A. NO. 1631/2019 IN O.S. NO. 187/2012
DATED 13.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
18.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2020
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SUB JUDGE,
ATTINGAL IN I.A. NO. 1631/2019 IN O.S NO.
187/2012.
-------------
