Kerala High Court
Varkey Alappatt vs Sasi Anto on 7 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1945
OP(C) NO. 1582 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.07.2023 IN IA NO.6 OF 2023 IN OS NO.362/2014
OF I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
VARKEY ALAPPATT
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O KUNJIPPALU,
ALAPPATT PALATHINGAL HOUSE, FATHIMA NAGAR DESOM,
CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR THALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680005
BY ADVS.
K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN
DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN
JISSMON A KURIAKOSE
SANAL C.S
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
SASI ANTO
AGED 77 YEARS
W/O PERINCHERY LATE ANTO,
PERINCHERY HOUSE, PALLIKKULAM DESOM,
CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR THALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.08.2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OPC No.1582 of 2023
2
C. S. DIAS, J.
-------------------------
O.P.(C.) No.1582 of 2023
-------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of August, 2023
JUDGMENT
The original petition is filed challenging
Ext.P8 order passed by the Court of the First
Additional Subordinate Judge, Thrissur in I.A.
No.6/2023 in O.S. No.362/2014.
2. The brief relevant facts for the
determination of the original petition are:
2.1 The petitioner is the defendant in the
above suit, which is filed by the respondent for a
decree for permanent prohibitory injunction and
other consequential reliefs.
2.2 The petitioner has resisted the suit
through Ext.P2 written statement.
2.3 Later, the respondent filed I.A. No.1/2022
OPC No.1582 of 2023
(Ext.P3) to amend the plaint. The application was
resisted by the petitioner through Ext.P4 written
objection.
2.4 The court below, by Ext.P5 order, allowed
Ext.P3 application and granted leave to amend
the plaint. Yet, the respondent failed to carry out
the amendment within the prescribed time period
permitted under Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (in short, 'Code').
2.5 Subsequently, the respondent filed I.A.
No.6/2023 (Ext.P6) seeking enlargement of time
to carry out the amendment. Although the
petitioner resisted Ext.P6 application through
Ext.P7 objection, the court below, by the
impugned Ext.P8 order, has allowed Ext.P6
application.
2.6 Ext.P8 order is patently wrong and
erroneous. Hence, the original petition.
3. Heard; Sri.K.R.Arun Krishnan, the learned
OPC No.1582 of 2023
Counsel appearing for the petitioner on
admission.
4. The point is whether there is any illegality
in Ext.P8 order.
5. The petitioner's case is that, although the
court below had granted leave to amend the
plaint by Ext.P5 order, the respondent had failed
to carry out the amendment within fourteen days
as laid down under Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code.
6. The petitioner asserts that the time period
fixed in Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code is mandatory
and cannot be enlarged for the want of power
conferred under the said provision.
7. This Court in Gomathi Amma v. Meenakshi
Amma [1994 (1) KLT 315] has succinctly held
that the time period fixed under Order 6 Rule 18
of the Code can be enlarged, subject to the
condition that the applicant files an appropriate
application accompanied by an affidavit setting
OPC No.1582 of 2023
forth the reasons for the failure to carry out the
amendment within the prescribed time period of
fourteen days.
8. In the instant case, the respondent has
filed Ext.P6 application, seeking enlargement of
the time period to carry out the amendment for
the reason that the case bundle was misplaced in
the Court. Even though the application was
opposed by the petitioner, the court below by the
impugned Ext.P8 order allowed Ext.P6
application.
9. I do not find any error or illegality in the
course adopted by the court below, by exercising
its discretionary power on being satisfied that the
respondent was precluded from carrying out the
amendment within the stipulated time period of
fourteen days.
10. It is trite that the supervisory powers of
this Court is only to be invoked sparingly and in
OPC No.1582 of 2023
cases of exceptional rarity. This Court is not
expected to correct mere errors of fact,
committed by the court below while exercising
their discretionary powers.
The original petition is devoid of merit and
consequentially dismissed. Needless to mention
that, the petitioner would be at liberty to file his
additional written statement to the amended
plaint within a period of two weeks from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
C. S. DIAS
JUDGE
SKP/07-08
OPC No.1582 of 2023
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1582/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S. 473/2011 FILED
BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR DATED
02.02.2011
EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN O.S. NO 473/2011 BEFORE THE
MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR DATED 10.05.2012
EXHIBIT-P3 A TRUE COPY OF I.A. 1/2022 IN O.S. NO. 362/2014
DATED 29.07.2022 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT,
THRISSUR
EXHIBIT-P4 A TRUE COPY OF OBJECTIONS IN I.A. 1/2022 IN
O.S. NO. 362/2014 DATED 30.08.2022 ON THE FILE
OF SUB COURT, THRISSUR
EXHIBIT-P5 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A. 1/2022 IN O.S. NO.
362/2014 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT-I,
THRISSUR DATED 10.01.2023
EXHIBIT-P6 A TRUE COPY OF I.A. 6/2023 IN O.S. NO. 362/2014
OF SUB COURT THRISSUR DATED 30.06.2023
EXHIBIT-P7 A TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN I.A. 6/2023 IN O.S. NO. 362/2014
OF SUB COURT THRISSUR DATED 01.07.2023
EXHIBIT-P8 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.07.2023 OF 1ST
ADDITIONAL SUB COUR-T, THRISSUR IN I.A. 6/2023
IN O.S. NO. 362/2014
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
