IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19073 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 44/2010 IN OS.88/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, QUILANDY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.P.VASUDEVAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.OTHENAN VAIDYAR,KAKKAD HOUSE, STATION ROAD, ANAVATHUKKAL DESOM, MAHE AMSOM, MAHE. BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHRI.VASUDEVASHRAMAM,ARJUN HILL, P.O.NADUVATHUR,VIA KOYILANDY, NADUVATHUR AMSOM DESOM,KOYILANDY TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. 2. SHRI T.HEMACHANDRAN, AGED 62, S/O.MOOTHORANKUTTY, ANDOORA VALAPPIL, KEEZHARIAYUR AMSOM,NAMBRATHUKARA DESOM, NADUVATHUR P.O.KOYILANDY, KOYILANDY TALUK. 3. N.P.GOKULDAS, AGED 73, S/O.CHOYIKUTTY VAIDYAR, NADERIPOYIL HOUSE,KEEZHARITUR AMSOM, NAMBRATHUKARA DESOM,P.O.NADUVATHUR, KOYILANDY, KOYILANDY TLAUK. 4. K.SATHYAPAL, AGED 65, S/O.CHATHU VAIDYAR,KARINGALAT HOUSE, KEEZHARIYUR AMSOM,NAMBRATHUKARA DESOM, P.O.NADUVATHUR,KOYILANDY, KOYILANDY TALUK. 5. M.K.BALAKRISHNAN,AGED 73 S/O.CHOYIKUTTY VAIDYAR, 'SARANG', KEEZHARIYUR AMSOM,NAMBRATHUKARA DESOM, P.O.NADUVATHUR,KOYILANDY,KOYILANDY TALUK. WP(C) NO.19073/2010 2 6. K.RAMACHANDRAN VAIDYAR, AGED 82, S/O.KUNHIKUTTY VAIDYAR,'SHENAPURI, KEEZHARIYUR AMSOM,NAMBRATHUKARA DESOM, P.O.NADUVATHUR, KOYILANDY, KOYILANDY TALUK. 7. A.N.RUGMINI,AGED 71, D/O.A.SEKHARAN, POOKKOTH HOUSE, KEEZHARIYUR AMSOM,NAMBRATHUKARA DESOM, P.O.NADUVATHUR, KOYILANDY,KOYILANDY TALUK. 8. PROF.K.M.JAYARAJ,AGED 70, S/O.KUNHIKANARAN, ERANHIPALAM HOUSING COLONY, ERANHIPALAM P.O.,NEDUNGOTUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 9. K.K.S.NAMBIAR, AGED 80, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF, VRINDAVAN COLONY, CHEVAYUR, CHEVAYUR AMSOM DESOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK. 10. DR.P.RAMAN,AGED 60, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF, KARALI AYURVEDA CHIKILSA KENDRA, TOWN HALL ROAD, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 11. ARANGIL M.GOPINATHAN, AGED 62, S/O.A.SEKHARAN, KEEZHARIYUR AMSOM, NAMBRATHUKARA DESOM, 'ARJUN HILL', NADUVATTUR P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK. ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM FOR R1 T0 R 6 & R9 SRI.B.G.BHASKAR FOR R1 T0 R6 & R9 SRI.P.P.MOHAMED NOUFAL FOR R1 T0 R6 & R9 SRI.A.K.SRINIVASAN FOR R7 & R8 SRI.JIMMY GEORGE FOR R7& R8 SRI.A.S.BENOY FOR R7 & R8 SMT.M.LISHA FOR R 11 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.19073/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 88/2009 PENDING BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, QUILANDY EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO.383/2009 DATED 6.4.2009 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT PETITION DATED 11.01.2010 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO.44/2010 DATED 6.4.2010 (UNDER CHALLENGE) RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO.142/1994 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, KOYILANDY DATED 27.02.1997 EXT.R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN AS 121/1997 OF DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 28.1.2008 //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19073 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P5, order dated 06.04.2010 passed by the learned Munsiff, Quilandy on I.A.No.44 of 2010 in O.S.No.88 of 2009. Petitioner/plaintiff sued respondents for a declaration that meeting of respondent No.1, Shri Vasudeva Ashramam Society (for short, “the society”) held on 28.01.2009 is null and void and a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain respondent No.2/secretary of the society from convening the extra ordinary general body meeting on 08.04.2009. Along with the suit petitioner filed I.A.No.383 of 2009 for an order of temporary injunction against respondent No.2 convening the meeting on 08.04.2009. Learned Munsiff ordered notice to the respondents and vide Ext.P3, order dated 06.04.2009 granted interim order of injunction restraining respondent No.2 from convening the meeting on 08.04.2009 in violation of clause 11 of the memorandum (bye-law). It is the case of petitioner that in violation of the said order respondent No.2 convened meeting on 08.04.2009. Consequent to that, petitioner filed I.A.No.44 of 2010 (Ext.P4) for amendment of plaint to challenge validity of the meeting held on 08.04.2009 and seeking consequential reliefs. That application was opposed by the respondents contending that there was no violation of the order of injunction since meeting convened on 08.04.2009 was in accordance with clause 11 of the bye-law. Learned Munsiff vide Ext.P5, order dismissed Ext.P4, application WP(C) No.19073/2010 2 holding that materials on record would show that meeting was convened in accordance with clause 11 of bye-law and that amendment if allowed would change the nature and character of the suit. That order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that court below has gone wrong in deciding upon merit of the amendment and holding at this stage that meeting convened on 08.04.2009 was in accordance with clause 11 of the bye- law. Learned counsel for respondents contend that there was no violation of order of injunction in that as observed by the learned Munsiff, meeting was convened in accordance with clause 11 of the bye-law. It is contended that amendment sought for was not necessary for decision of the case and that attempt of petitioner is to protract the proceeding. Learned counsel states that the litigation involving respondent No.1 started as early as in the year 1994. 2. I have gone through the relevant records placed before me. It is seen from Ext.P3 that there was an interim order of injunction restraining respondent No.2 from convening meeting on 08.04.2009 in violation of clause 11 of the bye-law. Presently I am not at the question whether the meeting held on 08.04.2009 violated the order of injunction. That is a matter to be decided in other appropriate proceedings. It is not disputed and a reading of Ext.P4, application also shows that amendment was sought for consequent to convening the meeting on 08.04.2009. Petitioner wanted to challenge validity of the said meeting and seek reliefs consequent to that. That is an event which happened subsequent to the institution of suit and hence had to be brought into WP(C) No.19073/2010 3 the plaint by amendment in case petitioner wanted to challenge it. Learned Munsiff has proceeded on the basis that documents produced would reveal that extra ordinary general body meeting held on 08.04.2009 was legal and it was in accordance with clause 11 of the bye-law and as such the suit itself became infructuous. I am afraid, learned Munsiff was not correct in entering such a finding while considering the application for amendment. Time and again it was held that while considering an application for amendment, court has not to look into the merit of the amendment sought for. What is required to be considered is only whether amendment is required for a just disposal of the case and to decide the controversy involved. I stated that what is sought to be incorporated by the amendment is the subsequent event of respondent No.2 convening meeting on 08.04.2009. Questions whether meeting convened by respondent No.2 on 08.04.2009 was in accordance with clause 11 of the bye- law and whether petitioner will ultimately succeed on his allegations in the plaint and to be incorporated by amendment are matters to be decided after trial. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am persuaded to think that learned Munsiff was not correct on law or on facts in disallowing prayer for amendment. Hence Ext.P5, order is liable to be set aside and I do so. 3. Learned counsel for respondents has expressed the apprehension that a litigation which started in the year 1994 is likely to continue further. Apprehension of respondents can be allayed by directing learned Munsiff to expedite trial and disposal of the suit. Resultantly this Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P5, order is set aside. WP(C) No.19073/2010 4 Ext.P4, application is allowed. Petitioner shall carry out the amendment within fourteen (14) days from this day or within such time as may be extended by the learned Munsiff on application of petitioner. Learned Munsif shall expedite trial and disposal of the suit. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks