Dismissed

Valliyangal Muhammed Kutti v. K.P.Krishnakumar

Kerala HC16 Feb 2016OP(C)/473/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition challenging the dismissal of an application to file an additional written statement in a civil suit, holding that the reason supplied was evidentiary rather than pleading-related and the timing made the amendment unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The original petition challenging the dismissal of the amendment application was dismissed.

Valliyangal Muhammed Kutti Vs K.P.Krishnakumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/27TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 473 of 2016 (O)

¶6

-------------------------OS. NO.579/2012 OF SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE (II-A).

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/SUPPL. 4TH DEFENDANT:

¶8

VALLIYANGAL MUHAMMED KUTTI, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. MAMMED HAJI, VALLIYANGAL (H), ANNARA, NEAR KARUNA AUDITORIUM, TIRUR P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY, KABEER, S/O. KOYAKUTTY, K. PURAM POST, THIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SRI.T.K.SANDEEP, SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR, SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & D1, SUPPL. D2 & D3:

¶11

1. K.P. KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O. A.P. BALAKRISHNAPILLA, 'ROSHINI', P.O. KUTHIRAVATTOM, KOTTOOLI VILLAGE, PARAYANCHERY DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK - 673 016.

¶12

2. NALINAKSHAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O.APPU, MANIKKKOTH HOUSE, P.O. PUTHIYARA, KASABA AMSOM, KARIYAKUNNU DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN - 673 004.

¶13

3. SHEELAKUMARI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O. NALINAKSHAN, MANIKKOTH HOUSE, P.O. PUTHIYARA, KASABA AMSOM, KARIYAKUNNU DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN - 673 004.

¶14

4. DEEPAK, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O. NALINAKSHAN, MANIKKOTH HOUSE, P.O. PUTHIYARA, KASABA AMSOM, KARIYAKUNNU DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN - 673 004.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.R. BINDU SASTHAMANGALAM.

¶16

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

OP(C).No. 473 of 2016 (O)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 579/2012 BEFORE SUB COURT- IIA, KOZHIKODE.

¶22

P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY 1ST DEFENDANT IN OS NO. 579/2012 BEFORE SUB-COURT-IIA, KOZHIKODE.

¶23

P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY SUPPL. 4TH DEFENDANT DT. 19.11.2013.

¶24

P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DT. 08.12.2014.

¶25

P5 - A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DT. 02.02.2016 FILED BY SUPPL. D2 AND D3.

¶26

P6 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT DT. 02.02.2016 FILED BY PETITIONER.

¶27

P7 - A TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO. 583/2016 IN OS NO. 579/2012 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT-IIA, KOZHIKODE.

¶28

P8 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDE DT. 05.02.2016 PASSED IN IA NO. 583/2016 IN OS NO. 579/2012 OF SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶34

O.P.(C) No.473 of 2016

¶35

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Petitioner is the 4^th defendant in O.S.No.579 of 2012 of Sub Court-II, Kozhikode. The application filed by him to allow him to file additional written statement has been dismissed by the trial court. Its correctness is challenged.

¶38

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent/plaintiff.

¶39

3.The amendment application was filed after the case was posted for trial and just before the commencement of the trial. A witness has already been examined.

¶40

In the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application only one reason is stated for filing additional written statement. The reason is that the petitioner obtained certain information about the first respondent/plaintiff and the first defendant. This is not a matter to be pleaded in the nature of the case and is a matter for evidence. So it is unnecessary for the petitioner to incorporate those facts in their pleadings. Apart from the fact that the application was filed just before the commencement of the trial, the fact that the amendment is unnecessary also is a ground to dismiss the application. No interference is called for.

¶41

In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶44

cms

¶45

/True copy/ P.S.to Judge

Valliyangal Muhammed Kutti v. K.P.Krishnakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valliyangal Muhammed Kutti v. K.P.Krishnakumar

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

O.Kumari Vs Arunodayam Vayanasala

N.Syamalamma Vs Manjusha

Somasundara Panicker Vs Thankamany Amma

Naveen Vs State of Kerala

Paily Vs Ouseppachan

Rajesh Irahimkutty Vs Santhosh