The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition challenging the amendment of plaint in a suit for appointment of a commissioner to assess damages, holding no interference warranted as the suit's nature remained substantially unchanged.
Petition failed and was dismissed without prejudice to the right to raise contentions at appropriate stage.
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 SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1941
OP(C).No.1674 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19-02-2018 ON IA 15840/2017 IN OS 7476/2015 (SHOWN AS OS.7476/2017 IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER) IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT , THRISSUR
PETITIONER/S:
SIVARAGAN S/O. PANAMKOOTTATHIL AYYAPPAN, AGED 43,AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680002.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN SMT.AMBILY (PREMKUMAR)
RESPONDENT/S:
RAHEELA .K.JALAL D/O. MUGAL VEETTIL K MUHAMMED JALAL, AGED 30 , AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED IN THE COURT BELOW BY POWER OF ATTORNEY MUGAL VEETTIL K MUHAMMED JALAL,S/O. KHALID,AGED 77, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680002.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No.1674 of 2018
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein, who is the defendant challenges Ext.P5 order in IA.No.15840/2017 in OS.No.7476/2015 of 2nd Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur, by which an amendment was allowed to the plaint. It seems that it was opposed by the defendant. Not withstanding that the petition was allowed.
OP(C).No.1674 of 2018
3
has also noted that substantially the nature of the suit is not changed and no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner herein.
Accordingly, OP(C) fails and is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise his contentions at the appropriate stage before the court below.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE
R.AV
//True Copy// PS to Judge
OP(C).No.1674 of 2018
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT.P1. TRUE COPY OF PLAINT DATED 28-10-2015 IN OS 7476/2015 IN THE COURT BELOW. EXHIBIT.P2. TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 22-5-2017 IN OS 7476/2015 THE COURT BELOW.
EXHIBIT.P3. TRUE COPY OF IA 15840/2017 DATED OCTOBER, 2017 IN OS 7476/2015 THE COURT BELOW.
EXHIBIT.P4. TRUE COPY OF COUNTER DATED 7-12-2017 TO EXT.P3.
EXHIBIT.P5. TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19-2-2017 ON EXT.P3.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS NIL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court order allowing amendment to the plaint.
Whether substantial change in the nature of the suit would cause prejudice to the defendant.
SIVARAGAN S/O. PANAMKOOTTATHIL AYYAPPAN
RAHEELA .K.JALAL
SUNIL THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
