Kerala High Court
Secretary vs Sunilkumar on 4 June, 2024
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946
OP(C) NO. 1187 OF 2024
OS NO.353 OF 2020 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT ,IRINJALAKUDA
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
SECRETARY
KARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH GRAMAPANCHAYATH OFFICE,
KARALAM, KARALAM.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 680711
BY ADVS.
V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
P.R.REENA
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
SUNILKUMAR
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O KATTUNGAL BALAN, KUTTOOR.P.O, ILLIKKAD DESOM,
KARALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680013
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 1187 OF 2024
- : 2 :-
JUDGMENT
Exhibit-P5 order allowing the amendment application filed
under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the
'CPC') is under challenge in this original petition.
2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is
the plaintiff in O.S.No.353 of 2020 on the files of the Munsiff
Court, Irinjalakuda (for short, 'the trial court').
3. The suit is one for permanent prohibitory injunction
against the defendant Panchayat. In the cause title, the
defendant has been shown as "Secretary, Karalam Grama
Panchayat". After the commencement of the trial, the plaintiff
filed I.A.No.7 of 2024 to amend the cause title as "Karalam
Grama Panchayat represented by its Secretary". The trial court
allowed the application as per Ext.P5 order. Challenging the said
order, this original petition has been filed.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The suit is against the Panchayat. The Panchayat has
OP(C) NO. 1187 OF 2024
- : 3 :-
to be represented by its Secretary, instead the Secretary has been
shown as the defendant. In the affidavit filed in support of
I.A.No.7 of 2024, the plaintiff has asserted that it is only a
typographical error. Though this application has been filed after
the commencement of the trial, considering the fact that the
amendment sought is only to correct a typographical error and
that it will not alter the nature and character of the suit, the trial
court was justified in allowing the amendment application. I find
no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the
original petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
AS
OP(C) NO. 1187 OF 2024
- : 4 :-
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1187/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN
OS.NO.353/2020 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF
COURT IRINJALAKUDA DATED NIL JUNE 2020
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN
OS.NO.352/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF IA.NO.7/2024 IN OS.353/2020
FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT
IRINJALAKUDA DATED 1.3.2024
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN IA.NO.7/2023 IN
OS.353/2020 DATED 5.3.2024
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF'
COURT, IRINJALAKUDA IN IA.7 OF 2024 IN
OS.353/2020 DATED 26.03.2024
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR, ORDER NO.
LSGD/JD/TSR/1014/2023 - A11 DATED
10.05.2024
