In an original petition challenging the subcourt's dismissal of an amendment application, the court allowed the amendment of the plaint to correct the date of cheques, finding no prejudice to respondents and no other grounds to interfere with their order.
Order 4171 of 2012 set aside; original petition disposed of; amendment allowed; no costs.
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
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/16TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
OP(C).No. 4171 of 2012 (O)
OS.232/2008 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL
PETITIONER(S):
PRAMOD KUMAR,
S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, VRINDAVANAM, ADAYAMON P.O. THATTATHUMALA, KILIMANOOR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.RAJESH
SRI.K.M.ALEXANDER
RESPONDENT(S):
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX IN O.P.(C) NO.4171 OF 2012
PETITIONER'S EXTS:
| EXT.P-1 | A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.232/08 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P-2 | A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO EXT.P1 |
| EXT.P-3 | A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1835/2012 IN O.S.NO.232/2008 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. |
| EXT.P-4 | A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED TO EXT.P3 |
| EXT.P-5 | A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1831/2012 IN O.S.NO.232/2008 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. |
| EXT.P-6 | A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED TO THE EXT.P5 |
| EXT.P-7 | A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2012 DISMISSING EXT.P3 |
| EXT.P-8 | A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.09.2012 ALLOWING EXT.P5 |
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE.
V.CHITAMBARESH, J.
O.P.(C) No. 4171 of 2012 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The suit is one for realisation of money based on the original transaction. The plaintiff contends that a sum of 2,50,000/- was advanced to the defendants on 10.6.2007. It is stated that a further sum of 75,000/- was advanced to the defendants on 11.7.2007.
2,50,000/- and another cheque dated 10.3.2008 for 75,000/- were issued to the plaintiff. The plaintiff subsequently wanted to mention the date of passing of the cheques as 3.2.2008. This was sought to be introduced by way of amendment of the plaint. The court below has by the order impugned disallowed amendment.O.P.(C) No.4171 of 2012
2
be one for money on the basis of original advance.
amendment that this mistake was not noticed earlier notwithstanding exercise of due diligence. It satisfies the conditions under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants are not put to any prejudice by the amendment of the plaint as sought. The court below erred in disallowing the application for amendment of the plaint.
I.A.No.1835/2012 in O.S.No.232/2008 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Attingal is allowed. The defendants are undoubtedly entitled to file an additional written statement to the amended plaint. I however do not find any ground to interfere with the order allowing amendment of the written statement.
The original petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.
nj.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the amendment of the plaint to change the date of cheques is allowable under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Whether the defendants would be prejudiced by the proposed amendment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PRAMOD KUMAR
K.C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
DR.KAVITHA SEKHAR
V. CHITAMBARESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court