IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 9105 of 2009(O) ------------------------- OS.1764/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BINDHU ALIAS SUJATHA, D/O.OMANA, RESIDING AT T.C.19/860 (NEW T.C.NO.19/861(1), SANTHI BHAVAN, MUDAVANMUGHAL, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. OMANA, D/O.INDIRA, RESIDING AT T.C.19/860 (NEW T.C.NO.19/861(1), SANTHI BHAVAN, MUDAVANMUGHAL, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. USHA, W/O.MANIYAN, T.C.19/860, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, NEAR CSI CHURCH, KURATTOOR, MUDAVANMUGHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ANIL KUMAR, S/O.MANIYAN, T.C.19/860, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, NEAR CSI CHURCH, KURATTOOR, MUDAVANMUGHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ANILA, D/O.MANIYAN, T.C.19/860, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, NEAR CSI CHURCH, KURATTOOR, MUDAVANMUGHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9105 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1764 of 2007 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Thiruvananthapuram. The suit was filed for a decree for realisation of an amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest. There is also a prayer for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property and inducting third parties by force. The plaintiffs alleged that the predecessor in interest of the defendants was the owner of the plaint schedule property. The defendants received a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were allowed to occupy and enjoy the plaint schedule property for a period of two years on condition that on completion of two years, the said amount would be repaid to the plaintiffs. An agreement dated 12.11.2004 was executed by the defendants. The plaintiffs are residing in the property. It is also alleged that on 23.11.2005, a further sum of Rs.10,000/- was borrowed from the plaintiffs by the defendants. The suit was filed for realisation WPC No. 9105/2009 2 of the amount. The injunction was sought on account of the right claimed by the plaintiffs to keep possession of the property. 2. In the written statement filed by the defendants on 26.5.2008, they expressed their willingness to repay a sum of Rs.40,000/- and requested the plaintiffs to vacate the plaint schedule property. It is also stated that a direction may be issued to the plaintiffs to receive the amount and to vacate the building. 3. In November 2008, the petitioners filed I.A.No.9551 of 2008 for amendment of the plaint claiming a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiffs in addition to the relief prayed for in the suit. It was contended that after the institution of the suit and after obtaining the order of temporary injunction, the defendants trespassed into the plaint schedule property and uttered abusive and filthy words towards the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were also threatened by the defendants with dire consequences. The plaintiffs have sustained pain, mental agony and loss on account of which a sum of Rs.20,000/- is sought to be claimed in the plaint by way of amendment. The respondents filed a counter in which they stated that in spite of their WPC No. 9105/2009 3 willingness to pay Rs.40,000/-, the plaintiffs were not ready to vacate. As per the order passed by the court, the defendants remitted Rs.40,000/- before the District Treasury on 28.11.2008 and the challan receipt was produced before the court. It was contended that if the amendment is allowed, it would alter the nature and character of the suit. 4. The court below held that the amendment, if allowed, would change the nature and character of the suit and the remedy of the plaintiffs is to file a separate suit if they have got a cause of action. The court below also noticed that a sum of Rs.40,000/- was deposited by the defendants as ordered by the court. Cogent reasons have been stated by the court below for rejecting the application for amendment. The reasons stated by the court below for dismissing the application are correct. There is no ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl