Disposed

Yagasthala Educational Trust of India v. the South Indian Bank

Kerala HC4 Feb 2016OP(C)/3445/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of an original petition challenging the dismissal of an application to amend a written statement. The Court held that the trial court can consider the prematurity of a suit without such amendment and considered liability and costs in the result.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was disposed of with observations that the trial court can consider the suit's prematurity and award costs.

Yagasthala Educational Trust of India Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/15TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 3445 of 2013 (O) --------------------------I.A NO.176/2013 IN O.S NO.99/2011 OF SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY PETITIONER(S): --------------

¶6

1. YAGASTHALA EDUCATIONAL TRUST OF INDIA RGISTER NO 23/05/TU, KANIYAMBATTA P.O REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHIEF TRUSTEE, FR.TOM.C.CHACKO PUTHUSEERIL HOUSE, LACELACELAITTEE BHAVAN PARAKADAVU P.O ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY GEORGE V.J S/O.V.J JOHN AGED 43 YEARS PANAMARAM AMSOM, MANATHAVADI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT

¶7

2. GEORGE V.J AGED 43 YEARS S/O.V.J JOPHN, MANAGING TRUSTEE YAGASTHALA EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA KANIAMBATTA AMSOM, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT

¶8

3. SOLIYA W/O.GEORGE, CHIEF TRUSTEE YAGASTHALA EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA, KANIYAMBATTA VYTHIRI TALUK

¶9

4. ELIYAMMA M.S AGED 67 YEARS W/O.FRANCIS, TRUSTEE YAGASTHALA EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA, KANIYAMBATTA VYTHIRI TALUK

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶12

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD MEPPADI BRANCH, WYNAD DISTRICT PIN 673 577

¶13

BY SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OP(C).No. 3445 of 2013 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OPF PLAINT IN O.S NO 99 OF 2011 OF SUB COURT,SULTHAN BATHERY

¶19

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S NO 99 OF 2011 OF SUB COURT,SULTHAN BATHERY

¶20

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PETITION FOR AMENDMENT DATED 21/01/.2013 IN O.S NO 99 OF 2011 OF SUB COURT,SULTHAN BATHERY

¶21

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF DATED 16/03/2013 IN I.A NO 176 OF 2013 IN O.S NO 99 2011 OF SUB COURT,ULTHAN BATHERY

¶22

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 18/06/2013 IN I,.A NO 176 OF 2013 IN O.S NO 99 OF 2011 OF SUB COURT,SULTHAN BATHERY

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

NIL

¶25

------------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

vdv

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

=====================

¶31

O.P(C) No.3445 of 2013

¶32

==========================

¶33

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2016

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Petitioners are the defendants in O.S No.99 of 2011 of Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery. Petitioner trust borrowed certain amount from the respondent bank. The bank has filed the suit for recovery of the amount. Two years after the filing of the suit, the petitioners filed an application to amend the written statement to incorporate a plea that the suit is premature and it was filed on account of personal enmity of the then branch manager of the bank. This has been dismissed by the court below.

¶36

Heard.

¶37

Whether the suit is premature or not is a question which

¶38

can be considered by the trial court even without an amendment. So it is unnecessary for the petitioners to amend the written statement. If the suit is premature, certainly, the court cannot pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff. If the petitioners have committed breach of the contract and after the filing of the suit

¶39

O.P.(C) No.3445/2013

¶40

¶41

they have become liable to pay some amount to the bank, which also can be taken into consideration by the court which may pass a decree in favour of the bank. It may be relevant in awarding costs.

¶42

In the result, this original petition is disposed of with the above observations.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE

¶45

vdv/04/02/16

Yagasthala Educational Trust of India v. the South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yagasthala Educational Trust of India v. the South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padmini Vs Krishnankutty

Alexander Mathew Vs P.v.Rajamma

Ummer Vs Abdul Rasheed

Sudheer Bose Vs Shajahan

M.R.Gopi Vs Kochuthressia

M/S.Muthoor Vehicle Vs Kuriakose Eilas Paarel