N.Saramma v. Babu T.T.
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court allowed writ petition setting aside trial court order dismissing amendment application. Due to inordinate delay, amendment allowed conditionally requiring payment of costs before operational effect to permit respondents to raise limitation bar.
What did the court decide?
Ext.P2 and P4 set aside; I.A. 273/2001 allowed conditionally on payment of Rs.1,500/- costs before becoming operative.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2007 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1929
WP(C).No. 1572 of 2005(K) ------------------------OS.394/1998 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM ....................
PETITIONER:
N.SARAMMA, D/O. NESAMMA, SHYNI NIVAS, B.P. NAGAR, PINNANKONAM, PEYAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON
RESPONDENTS:
- BABU T.T., S/O. THANKAYYAN NADAR, RESIDING AT S.N.J. MANDIRAM, NIRMALA BHAVAN, NEAR CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KARAKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
- NIRMALA BABU, W/O. BABU T.T., RESIDING AT S.N.J. MANDIRAM, NIRMALA BHAVAN, NEAR CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KARAKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether amendment of plaint enabling plaintiff to get over bar of limitation should be allowed causing prejudice to respondents.
Whether doctrine of relation back applies universally upon amendment of pleadings.
Whether writ petition challenging dismissal of amendment application deserves relaxation due to inordinate delay.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
N.Saramma
- respondent
Babu T.T.
- respondent
Nirmala Babu
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court