Court disposed of original petition allowing petitioner to file proper application for amendment to plaint to incorporate relief of recovery of possession within two weeks, upholding trial court rejection of immediate inclusion.
Petitioner allowed to file proper application for amendment within two weeks.
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 K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/9TH MAGHA, 1937
OP(C).No. 599 of 2015 (O)
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A NO.77/2015 IN O.S NO.77/2005 ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA.
PETITIONER(S): --------------
BALAKRISHNAN NAIR SYAM KUMAR AGED 48 YEARS NEW NIVAS, PURAMBAMKOTTUKONAM, MARUKIL DESOM MALAYINKKEZH VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT USHAS PALLICHAL DESOM, PALLICHAL VILLAGE
BY ADVS.SRI.L.MOHANAN SMT.LIGEY ANTONY
RESPONDENT(S):
1. VISWANATHAN @ SADANANDAN S/O.NARAYANAN, PARUTHICHIKONAM ROADARIKATHU PUTHEN VEDU, THALAYAL DESOM ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE
2. SUDHARMA, D/O.SATHYABHAMA, DO DO 3. SATHYABHAMA JEEVAR LIJI DO DO 4. SATHYABHAMA SHARMAJA DO DO 5. AJITHA D/O.VASANTHA, KOTTAKKAKAM, MYLADIKONATHU VEEDU ARYANCODE DESOM, ARYANCODE VILLAGE NOW RESIDING AT AKARATHUMVILA VEEDU ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE
R1,R3&4 BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. ADV. SRI.MANU V. ADV. SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN ADV. SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No. 599 of 2015 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------
| EXT.P1: | COPY OF PLAINT IN OS. 77/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2: | COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS.77/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA |
| EXT.P3: | COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT IN OS.77/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA |
| EXT.P4: | COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.05.2015 IN IA.77/2015 IN OS.77/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA |
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
======================= O.P.(C) No.599 of 2015
============================
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.77 of 2005 of Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara. The suit is for declaration of his title and possession of the plaint schedule property. He filed an application to amend the plaint to incorporate a relief of recovery of possession also. Some other amendments also were sought to be made. The trial court allowed the application in part. The prayer to incorporate the relief of recovery of
possession was rejected. This is challenged.
claim possession of property and at the same time pray for recovery of possession. I think the trial court was right in rejecting the prayer. The petitioner does not want to make any changes in the body of the plaint. Unless the petitioner has a
O.P.(C) No.599/2015
2
cause of action in respect of the relief of recovery of possession the amendment cannot be allowed. The petitioner submits that he may be allowed to file a proper application. I think the request is reasonable.
In the result, this original petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner to file a proper application within two weeks from today. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that an order may be passed to the effect that the amendment will take effect only from the date of amendment may be considered by the trial court at appropriate time.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW , JUDGE
vdv/29/01/16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether amendment to plaint to incorporate relief of recovery of possession should be allowed.
Whether trial court was correct in finding that petitioner cannot claim and pray for possession simultaneously.
Whether petitioner required to file a proper application after amendment permission.
BALAKRISHNAN NAIR SYAM KUMAR
VISWANATHAN @ SADANANDAN
SUDHARMA
SATHYABHAMA JEEVAR LIJI
SATHYABHAMA SHARMAJA
AJITHA
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
