IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 15672 of 2006(N) --------------------------------- --- OS.38/2003 of ADDL.SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. THOMAS VARGHESE, S/O. THOMAS, NALPATHANCHIL VEEDU, EDATHUA P.O., KUTTANAD. 2. MAR THOMAS, W/O. THOMAS VARGHESE OF -DO- -DO-. BY ADVS. MR.G.S.REGHUNATH MR.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. M/S. BROTHERS CHITTY FUND, THIRUVALLA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER P.V.GEORGE, PARIATHETTU, PADINJATTUMCHERI MURI, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. 2. GRACE GEORGE, W/O. K.V. GEORGE, PARIATHETTU HOUSE, PADINJATTUMCHERI MURI, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADVS. SMT.ELIZABETH MATHAI IDICULLA FOR R1 MR.RACHEL P.MATHEW FOR R1 MR.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM FOR R1 MR.MARTIN D.ALUMKARA FOR R1 SMT.PUSHPY B.MURICKEN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.15672/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS ON 4.4.05 IN OS. NO.38/03 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. P2:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXT.P1 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS. P3:- COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE DEFENDANT IN OS. NO.38/03 OF THE SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. P4:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. NO.38/03 OF THE SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 2.6.06 IN IA. 479/05 IN OS. NO.38/2003 OF THE ADDL. SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.15672 OF 2006 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2009 JUDGMENT Ext.P5 order passed by the Additional Sub Judge, Alappuzha allowing I.A.No.479/05 for amendment of the plaint is under challenge. Defendants in O.S.No.38/03 on the file of the Addl. Sub Court, Alappuzha are the petitioners herein. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.3.86 lakhs. At the time of the alleged transaction, the lst plaintiff-Firm was not registered. Subsequently, the Firm was dissolved, re-constituted and registered. The fact now sought to be inserted is that the present- Firm is a successor-in-interest of the old firm. According to the plaintiffs, amendment will not change the nature and character of the suit and an alternative plea based on Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act is also sought to be inserted. 2. The court below concluded that the proposed amendment is not prejudicial to the defendants and that the -2- W.P.(C).No.15672/06 question need be considered in detail on merits. Amendment application was resisted by the defendants on the ground that it is highly belated and therefore, liable to be dismissed. It is true that the application was filed after completion of the trial; but the amendment proposed is necessary for proper adjudication of the disputes between the parties. There is nothing wrong in allowing the amendment even at that stage. Plaintiffs submitted that due to oversight, the pleadings could not be included in the plaint. The court below satisfied that the present application is filed bonafidely and therefore the petition was allowed on costs of Rs.1,000/- to be paid to the defendants. Several grounds are raised by the petitioners/defendants challenging Ext.P5 order. I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P5 order passed by the court below. The reasons for allowing amendment were examined by the court below in detail and held that there is every justification to permit the plaintiffs to include necessary -3- W.P.(C).No.15672/06 pleadings for proper adjudication of the case on hand. This Writ Petition lacks merits and accordingly, it is dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.