Prasannan vs Prasannan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3959 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942

                     OP(C).No.1274 OF 2020

          OS 228/2010 OF MUN-MAGI COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA

   CMA 36/2018 DATED 28-05-2020 OF SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY

                           -----------


PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

             PRASANNAN
             AGED 52 YEARS
             S/O.KARUNAKARAN, KANNAMKOMATH VEEDU, KADUVINAL
             MURI, VALIKUNNAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK,
             ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT (WRONGLY SHOWN IN EXHIBIT P1
             PLAINT AS PRASANNAN, KANNAMKOMATH VEEDU, CHATHIYARA
             MURIYIL, THAMARAKKULAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK).

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.K.SHAJ
             SRI.RENJIT GEORGE
             SRI.C.IJLAL
             SMT.UMMUL FIDA
             SRI.ARUN CHAND
             SRI.JOSEPH MARY DAS
             SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P.
             SHRI.JAI GOVIND M.J.

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

      1      CHANDRAMATHI,
             AGED 65 YEARS
             D/O.SAVITHRI, THUNDUTHARAYILO (PALATHUNDIL
             THEKKATHIL, KIDANGAYAM VADAKKE MURI, SOORANADU
             SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK,
             KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 522.
 OP(C).No.1274 OF 2020


      2      PRASHANTHAN,
             KANNAMKOMATH VEEDU, CHATHIYARA MURIYIL,
             THAMARAKKULAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA
             DISTRICT (FICTITIOUS PERSON), PIN-691 004.

             R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                     SATHISH NINAN, J.
           ==================
                O. P. (C) No.1274 of 2020
           ==================
          Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2021

                        JUDGMENT

The application for amendment of the written

statement, which was dismissed by the trial court,

was allowed in the appeal filed therefrom.

2. An order passed under Order VI Rule 17 of

the Code of Civil Procedure is not appealable under

Order 43. Hence, the appeal could not have been

entertained.

3. In view thereof, the judgment in the appeal

is liable to be set aside and the appeal dismissed

as not maintainable and I do so. However, this will

be without prejudice to the rights of the

respondents to challenge the order dismissing the

amendment application in appropriate proceedings.

Original petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge OP(C).No.1274 OF 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.228/2010 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS NO.228/2010 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF IA NO.240/2018 IN OS NO.228/2010 SEEKING AMENDMENT OF EXHIBIT P1 PLAINT.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2018 IN IA NO.240/2018 IN OS NO.228/2010 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.36/2018 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.05.2020 IN CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.36/2018 OF THE SUBORDINATE COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

------------