Dismissed

Pramod Kunhiparambath v. Prasad Menon

Kerala HC4 Jul 2022OP(C)/162/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Original Petition sought to set aside an order rejecting an application for leave to amend a written statement in a civil suit for injunction. The High Court held that the amendment application fell within the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC as no sufficient cause was shown. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The original petition is dismissed as it is devoid of any merits.

Pramod Kunhiparambath Vs Prasad Menon — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

OP(C) NO. 162 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2020 IN I.A.NO.03/2020 IN OS
NO.87/2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

PRAMOD KUNHIPARAMBATH,
AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O. DAMODARAN, CONTRACTOR,
KUNHIPARAMBATH HOUSE,
AZHIYUR AMSOM DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK - 673 309

¶9

BY ADVS.BIJU ABRAHAM
SRI.E.V.LIJEESH

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

PRASAD MENON,
AGED 42 YEARS,
LATE T.C. MADHAVAPANICKER,
DOCTOR, PRANAVAM, A.T. ROAD,
NEAR BLOCK OFFICE, DWARAKA NAGAR,
KASARGODE VILLAGE, KASARGODE TALUK,
KASARGODE DISTRICT - 671 121

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS
SRI.K.K.ANILRAJ

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶14

O.P.(C)No.162/2020

¶15

-:2:-

¶16

Dated this the 4^th day of July,2022

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The original petition is filed to set aside the order

¶19

dated 07.01.2020 in I.A.No.3/2020 in O.S.No.87/2016(Ext.P5) passed by the Court of the Munsiff, Vatakara.

¶20

The petitioner’s case, in the nutshell, in the memorandum of the original petition, is that; he is the defendant in the above suit, which is filed by the respondent seeking a decree for mandatory and prohibitory injunction in respect of the property scheduled in Ext.P1 plaint. Ext.P2 is the written statement filed by the petitioner. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who has filed two reports. The suit was included in the list for trial on 06.01.2020. Then the petitioner had filed I.A.No.3/2020, seeking leave to amend the written statement by including the name of the persons affected by the order of injunction

¶21

O.P.(C)No.162/2020

¶22

-:3:-

¶23

and also, to elaborate further on the identity of the plaint scheduled property. However, the court below, without adverting to any of these aspects has rejected the same by the impugned Ext.P5 order. Ext.P5 order is erroneous and wrong. Hence, the original petition.

¶24

Heard; Sri. Biju Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. U.K.Devidas the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶25

The point that arises for consideration in this original petition is whether there is any illegality or error in Ext.P5 order passed by the court below?.

¶26

Admittedly, Ext.P1 plaint was instituted on 21.03.2016. The petitioner had filed Ext.P2 written statement as early as on 26.07.2016. The suit was listed for trial on 21.06.2017. Then it was removed from the list and adjourned to 17.07.2017. Thereafter, an application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner was filed. The Advocate Commission filed his report on

¶27

O.P.(C)No.162/2020

¶28

-:4:-

¶29

25.10.2017. Again, the suit was listed for trial to 04.01.2018. Again, the petitioner had filed an

¶30

application seeking leave to amend the pleadings which was allowed on 07.03.2019. The suit was again listed for trial on 06.07.2019 and taken up for judgment on 27.07.2019. Subsequently, the suit was re-opened. The suit was again listed for trial to 03.12.2019. The respondent let in evidence and the suit was posted for the petitioner's evidence to 04.01.2020. It was at this juncture, that the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 application seeking leave to amend the written statement by incorporating certain additional details, including the names of certain persons who are allegedly affected by the order of injunction and to elaborate on the identity of the plaint scheduled property. The Trial Court has rejected Ext.P3 application by the impugned Ext.P5 order.

¶31

Going by the above sequence of events, Ext.P3

¶32

O.P.(C)No.162/2020

¶33

-:5:-

¶34

application is clearly hit by the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner has not averred any ground or stated sufficient cause to substantiate that, despite due diligence on his part, the details sought to be incorporated were not within his knowledge before the commencement of trial. I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned Ext.P5 order passed by the court below, warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

The original petition is devoid of any merits and is hence dismissed.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

//True copy/

P.A.To Judge

DST/04.07.22

O.P.(C)No.162/2020

¶42

-:6:-

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.284/2018
OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI DATED SEPTEMBER,
2018.

¶46

EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.
1853/2018 IN O.S. NO. 284/2018 OF THE MUNSIFF
COURT, MANJERI DATED 26.09.2018.

¶47

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN I.A. NO. 1854/2018 IN O.S. NO. 284/2018 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI DATED 17.10.2018.

¶48

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN I.A. NO. 1432/2019 IN O.S. NO. 284/2018 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI DATED 11.03.2020.

¶49

EXHIBIT 5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO.3/2022 IN O.S. NO. 284/2018 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI DATED 24.03.2022.

¶50

EXHIBIT 6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO.5/2022 IN O.S. NO. 284/2018 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI DATED 24.03.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶51

EXHIBIT P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO.4/2022 IN O.S. NO.
284/2018 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI DATED
24.03.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶52

EXHIBIT 8THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO.3/2022 IN O.S. NO.
284/2018 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI DATED
24.03.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶53

EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN I.A. NO. 4/2022 IN O.S. NO.284/2018 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI DATED 23.05.2022

¶54

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL

Pramod Kunhiparambath v. Prasad Menon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kunhiparambath v. Prasad Menon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mujeeb Rahman Vs Haseena.v.

Archana v. Nair Vs Dhanesh Padmanabhan

George Veeran Vs Subanamma Ninan

Geevarghse Vs Shibu

Ambrose.a.B, Vs K.P.Joshy

Aan Mary Ivan Vs Shebin Baby @ Shebin Baby John