Mathradan Palora Ganesan vs Ammini.C.V
2021 Latest Caselaw 360 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

                        OP(C).No.1006 OF 2020

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 150/2014 DATED 17-02-2020 OF
                    MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR


PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

             MATHRADAN PALORA GANESAN,
             AGED 55 YEARS
             S/O PALERI DAMODARAN, PERINTHATTA AMSOM DESOM,
             TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
             SRI.S.S.ARAVIND

RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

             AMMINI.C.V
             AGED 66 YEARS
             D/O RAYARAPPAN, CHOVVATTU VALAPPIL, NEAR
             AYYAPPANPARA, AYYAPPA BHAJANAMADAM,UMMERAPOYIL,
             PERINGOME VILLAGE, P.O.PERINGOME, TALIPARAMBA TALUK
             KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 353.

             R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.UNNI NAMBOODIRI

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  2
OP(C).No.1006 OF 2020




                           JUDGMENT

The dismissal of an application for amendment of

the plaint is under challenge by the plaintiff.

2. The suit is one for prohibitory injunction against

trespass. In the written statement, the defendant

raised a claim of title over the property. According to

the plaintiff, that contention of the defendant has

necessitated the amendment now sought for.

3. All that the plaintiff has sought for is to incorporate

some averments challenging the title as claimed by

the defendant. There is no change in the subject

matter of the suit or in the nature of the suit. The trial

court has dismissed the application relying on the

proviso to Order VI Rule 17 which deals with a

situation where trial in the suit has commenced. It is

not in dispute that the trial in the suit had not

commenced while the amendment application was

under consideration or even now. Therefore, the

dismissal of the application on that ground cannot be

OP(C).No.1006 OF 2020

sustained. On the facts as noticed above, I am of the

opinion that the application for amendment is liable to

be allowed.

In the result, the original petition is allowed. The

order dated 17/02/2020 in I.A.No.937/2019 is set aside

and the application will stand allowed. The petitioner -

plaintiff shall carry out the amendment on or before

29/01/2021. On such amendment being carried out,

the court shall afford opportunity to the defendant to

file additional written statement, if sought for.

Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2014,

the trial court shall expedite the disposal of the suit.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

rsr

OP(C).No.1006 OF 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY PLAINT OS NO 150/14 FILED BEFORE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANUR DATED 11.4.2014

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN OS NO 150/14 ON THE FILED OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANUR DATED 4.6.2014

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN SUPPORT OF IA NO 937/2019 IN OS NO 150/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANUR DATED 30.8.2019

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN IA NO 937/2019 IN OS NO 150/2014

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO 937/2019 IN OS NO 150/2014 DATED 17.2.2020 PASSED BY HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANUR.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT DATED 5-6-2014 IN O.S 150/14 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT,PAYYANUR

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT AND PLAN DATED 10-3-2016 IN O.S NO.150/14 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANUR