The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of an amendment application and the consequent stay order. The court held that the amendment was barred by lack of pecuniary jurisdiction and delay.
The writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed. No order as to 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 P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/29TH PHALGUNA, 1938
OP(C).No. 100 of 2013 (O)
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2011 IN I.A.NO.5256 OF 2011 IN OS.NO.1181/2008 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER:
P.NIRMALA, D/O.ELSY T.C.23/1813, BNRA 11 (OLD TC 9/166-1) JAWAHAR NAGAR, SASTHAMANGALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA SMT.R.BINDU SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.GENS GEORGE ELAVINAMANNIL SMT.M.K.LEELAKUMARI
RESPONDENT:
VINOD SANKAR, S/O.KARUNAKARAN T.C.11/516, NANDAN NAGAR NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003. BY ADV. SRI.V.SURESH BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C)NO.100 OF 2013
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
//TRUE COPY//
AHZ/
P.Somarajan, J.
O.P.(C) No.100 of 2013 (O)
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner/plaintiff filed this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.11.2011 in I.A.No.5256 of 2011 in O.S.No.1181 of 2008 of the the Principal Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The said application was filed for amending the suit incorporating a prayer for damages. Originally the suit was instituted for injunction simplicitor against trespass. The valuation made in the amendment application regarding the claim of damages is at ₹1,80,000/-. It is outside the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court. The amendment was sought in the suit filed for an injunction simplicitor by the very same plaintiff.
O.P.(C) No.100 of 2013 (O)
:: 2 ::
was moved and it was allowed. The commissioner visited the property and assessed the damages. It is thereafter on 7.7.2011 the amendment application was filed, just three days' before the expiry of the three years' period from the date of commission of the alleged destruction. The amendment sought for in the plaint is for an amount of ₹1,80,000/- as damages. If such an amendment is allowed, the jurisdiction to deal with the matter by the Munsiff's Court would stand as ousted due to want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Such an amendment is not permissible especially when the plaintiff can institute a fresh suit for recovery of damages, if any, sustained/ caused due to the act of the defendant. Instead of filing a separate suit for recovery of damages, the plaintiff kept away nearly for a long period of three years and came to the court at the fag-end with an application for amendment seeking damages of ₹1,80,000/-, which is admittedly beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that court. It was rightly dismissed by the lower court on two grounds that the proposed amendment is outside the pecuniary jurisdiction of the said court and the application is highly belated. It is so strange that the plaintiff immediately rushed to this court with this petition and obtained stay of the entire proceedings for a period of more than
O.P.(C) No.100 of 2013 (O)
:: 3 ::
three years under the guise of amendment which was negatived by the trial court. Going by the order, I could not find any reason for interference by this court and hence the original petition fails. It deserves only a dismissal and I am doing so.
In the result, the original petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
P. Somarajan Judge
ahz/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere to set aside the trial court's dismissal of the amendment application and subsequent stay order.
Whether an amendment seeking damages beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court is permissible when the plaintiff could have filed a separate suit.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
P.NIRMALA
VINOD SANKAR
P.SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
