M.v.Thomas v. Pious Joseph
Case brief
What is this about?
Kerala High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside an order dismissing an application to amend a plaint, conditioning relief on payment of costs to the respondent and the Legal Services Committee.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order setting aside on condition of payment of Rs.6500/- costs within three weeks; otherwise order confirmed and Writ Petition dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
FRIDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2007 / 1ST ASHADHA 1929
WP(C).No. 31101 of 2005(C)
-------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/10/2005 IN IA.1820/05 IN OS.253/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT, PALA
PETITIONER:
M.V.THOMAS, S/O.VARKEY, MALANAKARAVATTU HOUSE, KURICHITHAM P.O. MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC
RESPONDENT: ------------PIOUS JOSEPH, S/O.OUSEPH, PALAKOMATTOM THOZHUTHUNKAL HOUSE, KURICHITHANAM P.O. MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside an order dismissing an application for amendment of plaint.
Whether strict compliance with procedural requirements regarding proof of due diligence excuses failure to apply for amendment before the commencement of trial.
Under what conditions should the dismissal of the application for amendment be set aside to allow adjudication of the real controversy.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M.V.THOMAS
- respondent
PIOUS JOSEPH
Coram
PIUS C KURIAKOSE
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court