Dismissed

Velayudhan v. Jacob.C.P

Kerala HC16 Oct 2012OP(C)/1485/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment affirms the impugned order disallowing an amendment to a plaint in a suit for specific performance. The court held that permitting the amendment would effectively allow the plaintiff to retract prior admissions made while facing ex-parte proceedings, justifying the high court's decision to dismiss the original petition.

What did the court decide?

Order affirming the impugned order and dismissing the original petition.

Velayudhan Vs Jacob.C.P — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/24TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 1485 of 2012 (O)

¶6

OS.1320/2007 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

VELAYUDHAN, AGED 74, S/O LATE PERUMPARAMBIL MANICKAN, CHOWOOR DESOM CHOWOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

JACOB S/O CHAKALLAKAL PAILOTH, PALAKKAL DESOM PALISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.680001.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) BY ADV. SMT.R.RAJITHA

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP(C) NO. 1485/2012

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.1320 OF 2007 DATED 17.11.2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR.

¶18

EXHIBIT P2: A TURE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN EXT P1 SUIT DATED 16.5.2011.

¶19

EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 1867 OF 2011 IN EXT P1 DATED 11.10.2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR.

¶20

EXHIBIT P4: A TURE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDL. SUB COURT, THRISSUR DATED 17.10.2011.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶22

/TRUE COPY/

¶23

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶24

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶25

OP(C) NO. 1485 OF 2012

¶26

Dated this the 16^th day of October, 2012

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

An order disallowing an application for amendment of the plaint in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale is under challenge. The petitioner/defendant had in the reply notice and in the original written statement admitted the receipt of advance and also the execution of the agreement. The defendant by way of amendment wanted to incorporate a plea that he was financially dependent on the plaintiff/respondent and that he was misguided to concede the receipt of advance and execution of the agreement earlier.

¶29

It is evident from the proceedings in the court below that the petitioner was set ex-parte twice and a decree followed. It is only after the ex-parte decree was set aside for the second time has the petitioner thought of rising this plea by way of amendment. The court below was perfectly justified in stating that the amendment if allowed has the effect of taking away an admission already made and that it cannot be permitted.

¶30

¶31

OP(C) No. 1485/2012

¶32

The petitioner finally contended that it will be inequitable to grant the relief of specific performance at this distance of time when the value of the property has a soared high. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a labourer by profession and that he is residing in the house situated in the plaint schedule property. Whether the equitable relief of specific performance should be granted or not is based on sound discretion of the court under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. These are matters to be considered by the court below at the time of final disposal and does not arise for consideration in this Original Petition.

¶33

The impugned order is affirmed and the Original Petition is disposed of.

¶34

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶35

ncd

Velayudhan v. Jacob.C.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velayudhan v. Jacob.C.P

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

Bhargavi and Others Vs Anoop and Others

K.K.Raveendran and Others Vs K.K.Janardanan and Others

Sreelekha Vs K.Bhaskaran Nadar

Babu Scaria Vs Mariyamma Joseph

N.Balan Vs Mrs.Devaki R.Nair

M/S. Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Limited Vs Kunhikrishnan