IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14444 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.44/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: T.M.RASHEED, S/O.LATE ABDULLA, THAZHEMADATHIKOLE, PERINGATHUR, THALASERY. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1. KANARAN, S/O.KANNAN, THAZHEMADATHIKOLE, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY. 2. MADATHIKOLE KALLYANI, W/O.KANNAN, THAZHEMADATHIKOLE, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY. 3. JANU, D/O.KANNAN, THAZHEMADATHIKOLE, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY. 4. KRISHNAN, S/O.KANNAN, THAZHEMADATHIKOLE, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY. 5. NANU, S/O.KANARAN, THAZHEMADATHIKOLE, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY. 6. RAGHAVAN, S/O.KANNAN, THAZHEMADATHIKOLE, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY. 7. SANTHA, D/O.KANNAN, THAZHEMADATHIKOLE, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY. W.P.(C) No. 14444/2009 : 2 : 8. RADHA, D/O.KANARAN, THAZHEMADATHIKOLE, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY. 9. LEELA, D/O.KANARAN, THAZHEMADATHIKOLE, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY. 10. THAZHEMADATHIKOLE KUNHAMMAD, S/O.LATE ABDULLA, THAZHEMADATHIKOLE, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY. 11. USMAN, S/O.LATE ABDULLA, THAZHEMADATHIKOLE, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY. 12. YOUSUF, S/O.LATE ABDULLA, THAZHEMADATHIKOLE, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY. 13. SALAM, S/O.LATE ABDULLA, THAZHEMADATHIKOLE, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY. 14. NABEESU, D/O.KUNHABDULLA, THAYYULLATHIL HOUSE, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY. 15. VASUMATHI, D/O.NANU, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY. 16. NAVEEN (MINOR), S/O.VASUMATHI, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY. REPRESENTED BY MOTHER GUARDIAN - VASUMATHI. 17. NAVITHA (MINOR), D/O.VASUMATHI, PERINGATHUR, THALASSERY. REPRESENTED BY MOTHER GUARDIAN - VASUMATHI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== W.P.(C) No. 14444 of 2009 ========================== Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT The 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 44 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thalassery, challenges Ext.P5 order dated 23.03.2009 as per which the plaintiff has been permitted to amend the plaint by filing I.A. No. 1857 of 2008 so as to incorporate a plea which is inconsistent to the case originally pleaded. Merely because a plaint is permitted to be amended under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, it does not follow that the said part of the suit claim is decreed. The defendants including the petitioner can file additional written statements controverting the amendment incorporated in the plaint and they can also oppose the suit on all grounds available to them including the ground that the framing of the suit as originally laid has been totally changed by the amendment. Reserving this right of the defendant, this writ petition is dismissed. Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv