This short order dismisses a writ petition challenging an order allowing amendment of a written statement. The High Court held that without seeing the impugned order preventing review of the propriety of the amendment, the petition could not be successfully examined.
The petitioner was advised to appeal against the final decree if aggrieved.
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 V.RAMKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930
WP(C).No. 35297 of 2008(B)
-------------------------OS.306/2005 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT-1, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER(S):
R.S. CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O. LATE SEKHARA MENON, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT RUGMINI SOUDHAM, SREEKRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU
SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD
RESPONDENT(S):
2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.35297 of 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.306 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad challenges an order said to have been passed by the learned Munsiff allowing Ext.P3 application filed by the defendants (after the case was posted for judgment) to amend the written statement in order to withdraw an admission made in the written statement allegedly on account of a mistake committed by their counsel.
2
W.P.(c).No.35297 of 2008
aggrieved by the order passed on Ext.P3, he can certainly challenge the order passed on Ext.P3 in an appeal against the decree to be passed provided the decree eventually passed by the learned Munsiff is against the petitioner. Reserving this liberty this writ petition is dismissed.
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can examine the order allowing amendment of written statement without seeing the order.
Whether the petitioner can challenge the alleged erroneous amendment order through an appeal against the final decree.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.S. Chandrasekharan
Rajammal
Sandhyagu
Thomas
K.S. Sethumadhavan
P.S. Narayanan
V. Ramkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
