IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 32620 of 2008(G) -------------------------- OS.49/2005 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.V.VALSAMMA, W/O.P.A.BAHULEYAN, ELLIKKAL VEETTIL, MUHAMMA P.O., CHARAMANGALAM MURI OF THANNERMUKKAM SOUTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- T.K.SUKUMARAN, S/O.KUTTAN, KANIAMPARAMBIL, CHARAMANGALAM MURI, THANNERMUKKAM SOUTH VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.D.PREM KAMATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.32620/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.49 OF 2005 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA DATED 19.1.2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.49 OF 2005 DATED 16.5.2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN I.A.NO.3304/2006 IN O.S.NO.49/2005 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA DATED 1.12.2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 10.1.2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA IN I.A.NO.3304/2006 IN O.S.NO.49/2005 DATED 22.2.2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.32620 OF 2008 (G) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing Ext.P5 after calling for the records relating thereto and allow I.A.NO.3305/2006 in O.S.NO.49/2005 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Cherthala. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.49 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Cherthala. Suit is for perpetual prohibitory injunction, and the respondent, the plaintiff. When the suit came up in the list for trial, petitioner moved an application to amend the written statement. The learned Munsiff, after considering the objections raised by the WPC.32620/08 2 respondent/plaintiff dismissed the amendment application vide Ext.P5 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P5 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submitted that some corrections with respect to the location and description of a pathway were sought to be brought in by the proposed amendment, and that was absolutely essential for a fair adjudication of the suit on merit. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that under the guise of the amendment, a new case as different from the one canvassed in the original written statement, is sought to be introduced by the defendant. Perusing Ext.P5 order with reference to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I find that the court below has dismissed the amendment application mainly on two grounds that it is belated and also by the proposed amendment, the defendant wanted to take away some WPC.32620/08 3 admissions already made in the previous written statement and introduce a new case. Ext.P3 is the copy of the amendment application filed by the defendant to amend the written statement. Examining Ext.P3 application with reference to Ext.P2 written statement previously filed by the defendant in the suit, I find the court below is justified in forming a conclusion that under the amendment what is proposed is not mere corrections of some defects, but, setting forth a new case withdrawing the admissions made earlier. On that ground itself, the amendment was rightly found to be not allowable. Further more, it is seen, the amendment was proposed at a time after the commencement of the trial without showing sufficient cause why the defendant did not move earlier to seek amendment. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in Ext.P5 order passed by the court below. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp WPC.32620/08 4