Kerala High Court
Sangeeth vs Sherly Co on 3 February, 2023
OP(C) NO. 2075 OF 2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 14TH MAGHA, 1944
OP(C) NO. 2075 OF 2022
OS 37/2020 OF SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA
PETITIONER/S:
SANGEETH
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O SADANANDAN, VIJAYA SADANAM, EDAYAM P.O., ARACKAL
VILLAGE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691534
BY ADV SYAM J SAM
RESPONDENT/S:
SHERLY C.O.
W/O JOHN VARGHESE,PALAKKAL, KARIKKAM
PO,KOTTARAKARA,KOLLAM PIN, PIN - 691504
BY ADVS.
K T THOMAS
MATHEW BOB KURIAN(K/381/1991)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 2075 OF 2022 2
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved and displeased with Ext.P4 order passed in
I.A.No.4/2022 in O.S.No.37/2020 by the Court of the
Subordinate Judge, Kottarakkara, the defendant in the suit
has filed the original petition. The respondent is the
plaintiff.
2. The background facts leading to Ext.P4 order, in
a nutshell, are: the respondent has filed the suit against
the petitioner for compensation. The petitioner has
resisted the suit through Ext.P2 written statement.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.4/2022 (Ext.P3)
seeking leave to file an additional written statement under
Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (in
short, 'Code'). The court below, by the impugned Ext.P4
order, has dismissed Ext.P3 application. Ext.P4 is
manifestly wrong and unsustainable in law. Hence, the
original petition.
3. Heard; Sri.Syam J. Sam, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.T. Thomas, the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. Is Ext.P4 order erroneous, is the short question
that arises for consideration in the original petition.
5. It is well settled, an application filed under Order
8 Rule 9 of the Code, seeking leave to file subsequent
pleadings, is to supplement, clarify or elaborate the
pleadings on record.
6. In the case on hand, the petitioner filed Ext.P3
application to accept an additional written statement.
7. The court below, by the impugned Ext.P4 order,
has gone into the merits of the additional written
statement and found that the allegations in the additional
written statement are untenable.
8. I find the course adopted by the court below to be
erroneous and unsustainable in law because, it is trite; an
application seeking leave to amend the pleadings or to file
subsequent pleadings cannot be pre-judged at the leave
stage. Furthermore, I do not find any prejudice being
caused to the respondent in the leave being granted.
On an overall consideration of the pleadings and
materials on record, I am of the view that Ext.P4 order
warrants to be interfered by this Court under Article 227
of the Constitution of India.
In the result, I allow the original petition as follows:
(i) Ext.P4 order is set aside.
(ii) Ext.P3 application is allowed.
(iii) The respondent is permitted to file her rejoinder
to the additional written statement, within a
period of one month from today.
(iv) As the suit is of the year 2020, the Court of the
Subordinate Judge, Kottarakkara, is directed to
consider and dispose of the suit, in accordance
with law, as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
okb/3.2.23
//True copy// P.S. to Judge
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2075/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit1 P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 37/2020
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE
PETITIONER BEFORE SUB COURT ,KOTTARAKARA
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS
37/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE SUB
COURT ,KOTTARAKARA
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN
STATEMENT IN OS 37/2020 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE SUB COURT ,KOTTARAKARA
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN 4/2022 IN OS
37/2020 OF SUB COURT ,KOTTARAKARA
