Kerala High Court
George Roy vs Rose Mary on 1 November, 2024
OP(C).No.1973 of 2024 1
2024:KER:81326
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1946
OP(C) NO. 1973 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.07.2024 IN OS
NO.1 OF 2020 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT,KOCHI
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
GEORGE ROY
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.ANTONY (LATE), MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, VALAPPU
MARKET (WEST), O.K.BALAKRISHNAN ROAD,
OCHAMTHURUTH.PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682508
BY ADVS.
S.SUNIL KUMAR (PALAKKAD)
LEKSHMI S.SEKHER
T.X.SHAM JOSEPH
K.J.SUNIL
FEMY M.ANTONY
VISHNU MOHAN DEV
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
ROSE MARY
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O.BONYFACE, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SCHOOLMUTTAM,
OCHHAMTHURUTH.PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682511
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No.1973 of 2024 2
2024:KER:81326
VIJU ABRAHAM,J
-------------------
OP(C).No.1973 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of November, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above original petition is filed
challenging Ext.P4 order whereby the request of
the respondent for amendment of plaint filed as
IA No.20 of 2024 in OS No.1 of 2020 was
allowed.
2. The petitioner is the defendant in OS
No.1 of 2020 pending before the 1st Addl.
Munsiff Court, Kochi. Ext.P3 application was
filed by the respondent seeking to amend
Ext.P1 plaint and which was allowed as per
Ext.P4 order and thereafter Ext.P5 amended
plaint was also produced before the court. It
is challenging Ext.P4 order, the present
original petition has been filed.
2024:KER:81326
3. The petitioner contend that the
application is filed without any bonafides and
only to protract the matter.
The suit was one for permanent prohibitory
injunction and now the relief sought for by the
amendment is for a declaration and contended
that the amendment will change the fundamental
character of the suit. It is also contended
that the petition is highly belated, since the
Will came into force on the death of the
testator on 8.12.2021. The trial court found
that the respondent/plaintiff has raised
dispute regarding the absolute ownership of the
petitioner over the plaint schedule property
and therefore, the amendment sought for is
absolutely necessary. The court has also found
that if the amendment is not allowed it would
result in multiplicity of proceedings.
4. Taking into consideration, the above
2024:KER:81326
facts and circumstances, I am of the view that
since the plaintiff has raised a contention
regarding the absolute ownership of the
petitioner over the plaint schedule property,
it was absolutely necessary to seek a relief
for declaration the court has rightly allowed
the amendment application. Therefore, the
amendment allowed as per Ext.P4 is not liable
to be interfered with.
Accordingly, the above original petition
is dismissed.
sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM,
JUDGE
pm
2024:KER:81326
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1973/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT IN OS
NO-1/2020 FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE FISRT
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT KOCHI
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
ALONG WITH COUNTER CLAIM IN OS NO-
1/2020 FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE FISRT
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT KOCHI
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION
AS IA NO-20/2024 IN OS NO-1/2020 FILED
BEFORE HONBLE FIRST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF
COURT KOCHI
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO-20/2024
IN OS NO-1/2020 OF HONBLE FIRST
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT KOCHI DATED
17.07.2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED PLAINT IN OS
NO-1/2020 FILED BEFORE HONBLE FIRST
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT KOCHI
