Benny vs Sankaran Kutty
2024 Latest Caselaw 17115 Ker

Kerala High Court

Benny vs Sankaran Kutty on 20 June, 2024

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
  THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                    OP(C) NO. 850 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN IA NO.10/2023 DATED 17/03/2023
   IN OS NO.155 OF 2017 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKKANCHERRY

PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

         BENNY
         AGED 53 YEARS, S/O THOMAS,
         KUNALIL HOUSE, LNJALODI DESOM,
         KUMARENELLUR VILLAGE,
         TALAPILLYTALUK
         THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680590

         BY ADV M.K.DILEEP KUMAR


RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:

    1    SANKARAN KUTTY
         AGED 62 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAN,
         KUNDANINGATTIL HOUSE, MOORKANIKKARA,
         KOZHUKULLY VILLAGE,
         THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680751
    2    THE SECRETARY
         WADAKANCHERY MUNICIPALAITY,
         THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680582
    3    THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT
         COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE,
         THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680003
    4    THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
         COLLECTORATE, AYYANHTOLE,
         THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680003
         BY ADVS.
         SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN M
         K.S.RAJESH(K/503/1998)

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(C) No. 850/2023
                                      ..2..




                           JUDGMENT

This original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 order

passed by the Munsiff Court, Wadakkanchery (for short, 'the trial court').

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the

defendants.

3. The suit is one for damages. After the suit was listed for trial,

the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application for amending the plaint under

Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The said application was dismissed as per

Ext.P5 order. It is challenging the said order, this original petition has

been filed.

4. I have heard both sides.

5. Ext.P5 order is a cryptic single line order. Ext.P4 application

was dismissed for the only reason that the suit was listed for trial and it

belongs to the category of five year old case. When an amendment

application was filed, even after the commencement of the trial, the court

was bound to consider it on merits. There is absolutely no consideration

on the merits of Ext.P4 application. Hence, Ext.P5 order cannot be

..3..

sustained and it is set aside. The trial court is directed to consider Ext.P4

application on merits and pass an order, in accordance with law, after

hearing both sides. Thereafter, the trial court shall proceed with the trial.

This original petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE APA

..4..

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 850/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT OF OS NO 155/2017 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,WADAKANCHERY EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE 2ND, 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT PETITION, IA NO

EXHIBIT P5 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO 10/2023 DATED 17/03/2023