IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 15500 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- IA.NO.927/2009 IN OS.NO.311/2008 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM. .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------ JAGANADHA PRASAD @ REGHU, S/O. SAHADEVAN, AGED 53 YEARS, C.S. SADANAM, T.B. ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THOMAS P. VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE, PALLATHUSSERIL HOUSE, T.B. ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 2. THOMAS P. THOMAS, S/O. VARGHESE, PALLATHUSSERIL HOUSE, T.B. ROAD, KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15500 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.311/2008 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Kottayam. Suit is one for a perpetual prohibitory injunction. Plaintiff is the petitioner and respondents are the defendants in the suit. After the entire evidence in the case was recorded, when the case was taken up for disposal, after hearing the counsel on both sides, petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for carrying out a correction in the plaint which was objected to by the respondents/defendants. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the counsel on both sides, dismissed that application. Ext.P4 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. W.P.(C).No.15500 of 2009 - O 2 3. The correction sought for relates to only a mistake which had crept in the plaint regarding the details furnished as to the length of a portion of land in paragraph 14 of the plaint, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents stoutly resisting the relief claimed in the petition, contended that this is a case where the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 applies with full force as it is evident, there is total lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff in moving an amendment application even assuming a mistake had crept in the plaint. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to the impugned Ext.P4 order, I find that the amendment sought for deserves to be allowed as it is necessary to advance the ends of justice. True, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 brought in by the 2002 amendment interdicts any party in the suit or proceedings from seeking any amendment to the pleadings unless he is able to establish that such amendment became necessary despite due diligence on his W.P.(C).No.15500 of 2009 - O 3 part. However, the spirit and purpose of Order VI Rule 17 has to be taken into account in considering the merit of an amendment application. Order VI Rule 17 CPC is intended to enable a party to correct or rectify a mistake in his pleadings which is essential to resolve “the controversy” arising for adjudication. If at all there was absence of diligence on the part of the parties seeking amendment and so long as it is not causing prejudice to the opposite party and where such amendment is found necessary to resolve the controversy placed before the court for adjudication, the interest of justice demand allowing that amendment, if necessary, on terms. The proposed amendment sought for by the plaintiff shall be allowed on terms, subject to a condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.1,000/- to the respondent within 15 days from the date of this judgment. Cost ordered as above shall be paid to the counsel for the respondents and a memo filed before this Court. In default of payment of cost as ordered, dismissal of amendment petition shall stand confirmed. If cost is paid and the amendment is allowed, needless to point out the court below shall afford an opportunity to file additional written W.P.(C).No.15500 of 2009 - O 4 statement and of course, if required, a chance for adducing additional evidence also to both parties. The writ petition is disposed of as above. For report, post after 15 days. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-