High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging an order dismissing an amendment application in a 2003 civil suit. The Court held that the application lacked merit and was an attempt to protract the dismissal at the fag end of litigation. The petition was dismissed with no relief granted.
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 K.P.BALACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930
WP(C).No. 1160 of 2009(K)
------------------------------------------OS.216/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY
PETITIONER:
ROSAMMA, ARAYIL HOUSE, KOTTAMURI BHAGOM, THRIKODITHANAM VILLAGE,CHANGANACHERRY, REP.BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EAPPEN ANTONY.
BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN SRI.JOMY GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.P. Balachandran, J.
W.P.(C)No.1160 of 2009 K
JUDGMENT
Heard counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff.
that Item No.1 property belongs to her and that at
the time of construction of the compound wall,
contractor had been instructed to construct the compound wall on the east and south of Item No.1 scheduled property only after leaving out a property having a width of two feet for passage on the eastern and southern sides, but that when the Commissioner filed report, it is understood that on
the eastern side an extent of 8 sq.m. and on the southern side 14 sq.m. are left out.
either in the amendment application or in the affidavit filed therewith to the effect that more
extent has been left out either on the eastern side
or on the southern side of Item No.1 property. Description of the property in square metre,
2
WPC 1160/09
referring to the area, has no bearing when the petitioner/plaintiff has no case that property having an extent of more than two feet width has been left out for pathway, disregarding the instructions given to the contractor. Thus, there is no merit in the contention that more extent has been left out on the eastern and southern sides of the plaint schedule property.
WPC 1160/09 3
The suit is one of the year 2003. It appears that attempt of the petitioner is to protract the dismissal of the suit somehow or the other. However, as observed above, I do not see any merit also in Exhibit P9 application, which was dismissed by Exhibit P10 order impugned in this writ petition.
This writ petition is, hence, dismissed.
12th January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition assailing the order dismissing an amendment application merits allowance.
Whether the attempt to amend the plaint at the fag end of litigation is justified to protract the trial.
Whether leave was correctly refused for the proposed amendment of the plaint.
Rosamma
Chacko Joseph
Thresiamma Joseph
K.P. Balachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
