Allowed

N.Aboobacker Haji v. K.Mahroof

Kerala HC14 Nov 2007WP(C)/8689/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition challenging an impugned order rejecting a plaintiff's amendment application. The court mandated that the plaintiff prove the correct rent rate, permitting the amendment, framing issues, and directing payment of additional court fees while staying the trial.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; application for amendment allowed; additional written statement permitted; trial stayed until amendment and additional court fees.

N.Aboobacker Haji Vs K.Mahroof — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 8689 of 2007(H)

¶6

------------------------IA 2654/05 IN OS.125/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR ....................

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

M.ABOOBACKER HAJI, S/O.MANAKANGATHU KUNHAVA, KURUMBATHUR, P.O.PUTHANATHANI (TIRUR), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN

¶11

SMT.R.MEERA SMT.A.R.DIVYA

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

¶14

K.MAHROOF, S/O.KARIKULATHU BEENRANKUTTY HAJI, "STAR FOOTWEARS", PUTHANATHANI, TIRUR TALUK, KURUMBATHUR AMSOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) 8689/07

Appendix

Petitioner's Exts:

Ext.P1 true copy of the affidavit in support of the petition.

¶21

Ext.P2 true copy of the order dated 6.2.2007 in IA 2654/2005 in OS 125/2004

¶22

M.N.Krishnan, J.

¶23

======================== W.P(C).No.8689 of 2007

¶24

========================

¶25

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2007.

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed against Ext.P2 order passed in I.A.No.2654 of 2005 in O.S.No.125 of 2004. Plaintiff has moved the above application for amendment contending that while drafting the plaint, the rate of rent per day is shown as Rs.22.50 whereas it is really Rs.72.50. The plaintiff wants to correct it. On the other hand, the defendant would contend that it is not a bonafide application for amendment. The court below found that since Rs.22.50 is noted in the notice this cannot be allowed. At the stage of amendment, I feel that the court need not decide what is the rate of rent per day. When the plaintiff claims the rate of rent as Rs.72.50, the burden is exclusively on him to prove to the satisfaction of the court regarding the same.

¶28

Therefore, I feel that the amendment application need

¶29

not be thrown out and it can be allowed. Therefore, the

¶30

WP(C) 8689/07 -: 2 :-

¶31

impugned order is set aside and the application for amendment is allowed and the defendant is permitted to file additional written statement. If additional issues are to be framed that also may be done and the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. Till the amendment is carried out, additional court fee is paid and additional written statement is filed, the court is directed not to proceed with the trial of the case.

¶32

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶33

M.N.Krishnan, Judge.

¶34

ess 14/11

N.Aboobacker Haji v. K.Mahroof

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Aboobacker Haji v. K.Mahroof

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Pillai Chellappan Pillai Vs Krishnan Kochukunju Panicker

Thomas P.John Vs Geojit Financial Ser.Ltd

K.S.E.Board Vs K.S.Mohammed

Komathuputhiyaveettil Balakrishnan Nair Vs Jayanthi Gopala Krishnan

Nejim Shah Vs Ansar T.H.

Nafeesa Palat Vs Uma Unnikrishnan