IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 33013 of 2008(E) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 3265/08 IN OS.105/2005 of PRL.M.C., KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER:1ST PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------------ C.G. GOPUKRISHNAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. GOPINATHAN PILLAI, HARITHA, CHITTUMALA CERRY, EAST KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. MR.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR), MR.P.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:DEFENDANTS:PLAINTIFFS 2 TO 5: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JAYASREE, VISHUNBHAVAN, THEKKEMURI, EAST KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. SARASAMMA AMMA, OF -DO-..DO.... 3. C.G. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, CHERUPUNCHAYIL VEEDU, CHITTUMALACHERRY, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. 4. C.G. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, OF ...DO..DO.... 5. SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, VADAKKADATHUVEEDU, THEKKEMURICHERRY, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. 6. VASANTHAKUMARI AMMA, RATEESH BHAVAN, CHITTUMALA CHERRY, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.33013/2008 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.3265/08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.3265/08. P3: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.4116/08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN I.A.4116/08. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.4116/08. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.3729/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33013 of 2008 - E --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The order passed by a learned Munsiff striking out the amendment carried out in the plaint which was allowed on terms, for the reason of default in complying the terms, is challenged in this writ petition. A sum of Rs.300/- was ordered by the learned Munsiff as cost to the defendant/respondent in the petition while allowing the petition for amendment. Plaintiff carried out amendment, but, the costs ordered was not paid. Later on the application moved by the defendant/respondent noticing the lapses on the part of the plaintiff under the impugned order (Ext.P6), the learned Munsiff ordered to strike off the amendment already carried in the plaint. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. Having regard to the submissions made and also the facts and circumstances presented, I find that striking out of the amendment which was already carried out for non-payment of the costs ordered could have been avoided by directing the W.P.(C).No.33013 of 2008 - E 2 plaintiff to pay additional cost over and above the amount already fixed. Petitioner/plaintiff is directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as a pre-condition for carrying out the amendment in the plaint which had already been allowed by the court below, but, struck out later, as indicated above. Costs shall be paid to the counsel for the respondent in the writ petition, within a period of one week. The writ petition shall stand allowed on payment of such cost with Ext.P6 order set aside, and the court below shall permit the plaintiff to carry out the amendment afresh in the plaint, if necessary, by incorporating separate sheets with the plaint. Default in payment of cost will entail dismissal of the writ petition without further orders. For report, post after one week. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-