Kerala High Court
Shaji vs Sreeja on 6 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945
OP(C) NO. 2814 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.2023 IN OS NO.21 OF 2017 OF
ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/PRINCIPAL SUB COURT / COMMERCIAL
COURT,ATTINGAL
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
SHAJI
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O RAGHAVAN, DIVYA PRABHA,MARAPPALAM,
KESHAVADASAPURAM, KOWDIAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695004
BY ADVS.
M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN
M.HEMALATHA
K.S.SANTHI
MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN
RESPONDENTS/COUNTER-PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS:
1 SREEJA
D/O KOCHU GOVINDAN, KAILAS BUNGLOW, VALLIKKUNNATH
CHERIYIL, CHATHANNOOR, MEENADU VILLAGE, PIN - 691572
2 MAHALAKSHMI
D/O SASIDHARAN, KAILAS BUNGLOW, VALLIKKUNNATH CHERIYIL,
CHATHANNOOR,MEENADU VILLAGE, PIN - 691572
BY ADVS.
Rajesh R.(Varkala) R
M.KIRANLAL(K/963/2009)
MANU RAMACHANDRAN(K/917/2010)
T.S.SARATH(K/257/2012)
SAMEER M NAIR(K/000481/2017)
SAILAKSHMI MENON(K/1518/2021)
SMT.AKHILA B.(K/000259/2019)
JOTHISHA K.A.(K/123/2022)
AASHI K. SHAJAN(K/003854/2023)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C).No.2814 of 2023
..2..
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2024
The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit
O.S.No.21/2017 of the Principal Sub Court,
Attingal. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P8 order,
which refused to grant leave to file Ext.P5
replication.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the respondents.
3. The reason stated by the learned Sub Judge is
that, the ground for filing subsequent pleadings
in terms of Order VIII, Rule 9 is not revealed in
the petition. Learned Sub Judge is of the opinion
that, there exists no ground to invoke the power
under Order VIII, Rule 9.
..3..
4. This Court cannot endorse the stand taken by
the learned Sub Judge. It is relevant to note
that, the suit, as filed originally, was for
declaration that a document is null and void.
After filing written statement, the plaint was
amended, pursuant to which, the defendants have
filed an additional written statement. It is in
answer to the additional written statement that,
the present petitioner/plaintiff filed Ext.P5
replication. This aspect is stated in the
affidavit in support of Ext.P6 application seeking
leave. This Court fails to understand why the
learned Sub Judge has stated that there exists no
ground to invoke the Order VIII, Rule 9. A hyper
technical view of the rights of the parties have
always proved to be counter productive. Ext.P8 is
set aside, Ext.P6 application is allowed and
Ext.P5 shall be received on files. The suit shall
be proceeded with in accordance with law by the
learned Sub Judge.
..4..
The Original Petition will stand disposed of, as
above.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
TR
..5..
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2814/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED NIL 04-
2017 IN O.S.NO.21/17 OF THE SUBORDINATE
JUDGE'S COURT, ATTINGAL
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS DATED 15-07-
2017 IN O.S.NO.21/17 OF THE SUBORDINATE
JUDGE'S COURT, ATTINGAL
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT
APPLICATION DATED NIL 02-2020
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN
STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS
DATED 22-08-2023
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLICATION DATED
15-09-2023 IN O.S.NO.21/17 OF THE
SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, ATTINGAL
Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE I. A. NO. 3 OF 2023
IN O. S. NO.21/17 OF THE SUBORDINATE
JUDGE'S COURT, ATTINGAL
Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY
THE RESPONDENTS TO EXHIBIT-P6 I. A.
DATED 02-10-2023
Exhibit-P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10-10-
2023 IN IA 3/2023 IN O.S.NO.21/17 OF
THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, ATTINGAL
