A civil revision petition challenging a lower court order disallowing amendment of plaint prayers. The High Court held the amendment does not alter the suit's character, restored the application, and expedited disposal.
Impugned order set aside; I.A.No.787/2010 allowed; suit to be expeditiously disposed within six months.
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.CHITAMBARESH
SATURDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/26TH KARTHIKA 1934
CRP.No. 538 of 2010 ( )
OS.21/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT,KATTAPPANA
REVISION PETITIONER(S):
1. B.PRABHURAM, S/O.DR.V BHASKAR, RESIDING AT BHARATHY PARK ROAD, 5TH CORSS SAIBHAABA COLONY, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU
2. V.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.P.T.VADIVEL GOWDER, PTV ESTATE, KAILASAMEDU PARATHODE VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK
BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY
RESPONDENT(S):
1. JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, MAPPILASSERY PARAVATHY VILAS ESTATE JAINCHINNAKANDOM, NEDUMKANDOM, NDEUMKANDAOM KARA KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE,UDUMBANCHOLE TALUK
2. APPACHAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS,MAPPILASSERY, PARVATHY VILAS ESTATE JAINCHINNAKANDOM, NEDUMKANDOM, NDEUMKANDOM KARA KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE,UDUMBANCHOLE TALUK
3. KURIACHEN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS,MAPPILASSERY PARVATHY VILAS ESTATE KAINCHINNAKANDOM, NEDUMKANDOM,NEDUMKANDOM KARA KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE,UDUMBANCHOLE TALUK
4. KUNJACHAN, S/O.THOMAS, MAPPILLASSERY PARVATHY VILAS ESTATE KAINCHINNAKANDAOM, NEDUMKANDOM,NEDUMKANDOM KARA KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE,UDUMBANCHOLE TALUK
5. PALANICHAMI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O.CHINNACHAMY, PARVATHY VILAS ESTATE KAINCHINNAKANDAOM, NEDUMKANDOM,NEDUMKANDOM KARA KALKOONTHAL VILLAGE,UDUMBANCHOLE TALUK
R,R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN R,R1-4 BY ADV. SMT.T.P.LEKSHMI VARMA
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-112012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP.No. 538 of 2010 ( )
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G3-11547/04 DATED 1-12-2004 INFORMED THE 1ST PLAINTIFF
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
SMM
V.CHITAMBARESH,J.
= = = = = = = = = = =
C.R.P No. 538 of 2010
= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 17th day of November, 2012
O R D E R
The court below has by the order impugned allowed prayer Nos.4 to 6 and disallowed prayer Nos.1 to 3 to be incorporated in the plaint by amendment. Prayer Nos.1 to 3 relate to the incorporation of certain details regarding the extent and ReSurvey number of the property. The court below has disallowed prayer Nos.1 to 3 on the premise that the relief sought therein cannot be granted in the suit .
C.R.P No. 538 of 2010 2
Munsiff of Kattappana. Nothing said in this order will affect the discretion of the court below to allow or disallow the reliefs sought in the amended plaint on the basis of the evidence adduced. The court below shall expedite the suit and take the proceedings to a logical end within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.
V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE
smm
C.R.P No. 538 of 2010 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an amendment to the plaint regarding property details would affect the character of the suit.
B. Prabhuram
V. Vijayakumar
Joseph
Appachan
Kuriachen
Kunjachan
V. Chitambaresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
