Kerala High Court
Uma G.Nair vs Vinaya Babu on 23 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943
OP (FC) NO. 222 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 688/2014 OF
FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM
--------
PETITIONER/S:
UMA G.NAIR, AGED 36 YEARS,
D/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, UMANILAYAM HOUSE, NO.1,
KALLOORI NAGAR, PEELAMEDU P.O., COIMBATORE,
TAMIL NADU STATE, PIN-641004.
BY ADVS.
M.V.THAMBAN
SRI.R.REJI
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
SRI.ARUN BOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 VINAYA BABU, AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O.SUBASH CHANDRA BABU, SREELAKSHMI (HOUSE),
LAKSHMINADA CIVIL STATION WARD, KOLLAM P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 013.
2 THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,
AANANDAVALLEESWARAM BRANCH, KOLLAM P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 001.
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP (FC) No.222/2020 2
JUDGMENT
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This Original Petition was filed challenging
the dismissal of an application for amendment. The
petitioner is the petitioner in O.P.No.688 of 2014
on the file of the Family Court, Kollam. The above
original petition was filed for the recovery of gold
ornaments. The petitioner filed an application for
an amendment to incorporate the details of the gold
ornaments. The respondents opposed the said
application.
2. The Family Court dismissed the application
holding that the petitioner ought to have stated the
details of the gold ornaments while filing the
original petition. It is further stated in the order
that the petitioner ought to have filed such an
application atleast when an Advocate Commissioner
was appointed to ascertain and prepare the list of
ornaments in the locker.
3. Though notice was issued in this matter to
the respondents, none appeared for them.
4. Having gone through the impugned order, we
are of the view that the Family Court erred in
dismissing the application. The question is whether
such an amendment is necessary for proper
adjudication of the issues involved before the
Family Court or not. No prejudice will be caused if
the petitioner is allowed to furnish the details of
the gold ornaments. Anyway, if such an amendment has
caused any prejudice, that can be very well
safeguarded by the Family Court at the time of final
hearing after assessing the pleadings as well as the
evidence. The mere incorporation of the details at
later stage in the pleadings will not confer any
right on the petitioner. Such incorporation of the
details if later stage found to be prejudicial to
the respondents that can be considered at that time.
Therefore, safeguarding the respondents' interest as
above, we allow this original petition. The
amendment shall be incorporated within two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment
before the Family Court, Kollam.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
ln
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) NO.222/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL PETITION AS OP NO.
688/2014.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION
AS IA NO.1254/2014 IN OP NO.688/2014.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER REPORT
DATED 20.08.2014.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION
AS IA NO.1845/2014.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO IA NO.
1845/2014.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED ORIGINAL
PETITION.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
APPLICATION AS IA NO.410/2017 IN OP NO.
688/2014.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO IA NO.
410/2017 IN OP NO.688/2014.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED
27.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2020
IN IA NO.410/2017 IN OP NO. 688/2014.
