Under Article 227, the High Court refused to interfere with the Munsiff court's order granting permission to amend the plaint in a civil suit, holding that limitation is a question for the trial court.
Petitioner is at liberty to file an additional written statement raising all contentions, including limitation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930
WP(C).No. 20302 of 2008(P) -------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 754/07 IN OS.274/2002 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT., KOCHI
PETITIONER:
DINESHAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.NATARAJAN, RESIDING AT C.C.10/1024, (NEW NO.25/1192), AMARAVATHY, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682001.
BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ
RESPONDENTS:
RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.KATHIRVELU, RESIDING AT C.C.NO.10/1023, (NEW NO.25/1191), AMARAVATHY, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682001.
BY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
W.P.(C) No.20302 of 2008
Dated this the 7th July, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Defendant in O.S.No.274 of 2002, on the file of Munsiff Court, Kochi, is the petitioner. Plaintiff is the respondent. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the Munsiff granting permission to amend the plaint as sought for in I.A.No.754 of 2007. Respondent had earlier filed I.A.No.981/2006, an application for amendment of the plaint incorporating additional particulars, based on the report submitted by the Commissioner. Challenging the order passed by learned Munsiff allowing the application, petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.4729/2007. That writ petition was dismissed under Ext.P6 judgment. I.A.No.754/2007 was filed thereafter. Learned Munsiff under Ext.P9 order allowed the application and permitted petitioner to file an additional written statement and raise whatever contentions available to him. Petition was allowed on payment of cost of Rs.1500/=. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P9 order.
W.P.(C) No.20302/2008
2
heard.
On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through Ext.P9 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in the impugned order, in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The plea of limitation is available to the petitioner to be raised in the additional written statement. The amendment sought for in the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that plea is barred, as that is a
W.P.(C) No.20302/2008
3
question to be decided in the suit. Ext.P6 judgment does not show any undertaking as canvassed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, petition is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to file an additional written statement raising all the contentions available, including the plea on limitation.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
nj.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the Munsiff court's order allowing amendment of the plaint under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Whether the amendment sought changes the nature of the suit to the extent it was barred previously.
Dineshan
Radhakrishnan
M.Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
