IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 19248 of 2006(N) --------------------------------------- OS.382/2004 of SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. KERALA FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, MATHER SQUARE, OPP.TOWN RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT K.M.I. MATHER. 2. K.M.I. MATHER, NOOR MAHAL, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.V.V.ASOKAN MR.SUNIL SHANKER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ST.ALBERT'S COLLEGE, BANAERJI ROAD,ERNAKULAM - 682 018. 2. FR.CLEMENT VALLUVASSERY, MANAGER, ST.ALBERT'S COLLEGE, BANERJI ROAD,ERNAKULAM - 682 018. 3. COCHIN TENNIS TRUST, MAS BUILDINGS, COCHIN 18 , REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.S.SREEKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 19248/2006-N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.382/2004 PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE I.A.611/2006 IN O.S.382/2004, PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.611/2006 IN O.S.382/2004, PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.19248 OF 2006 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the records of the case leading to Ext.P3 order passed by the court below, set aside the same and allow Ext.P2 amendment application by means of an appropriate writ, direction or order. ii) Grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Courts feels just and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case. W.P.(C).No.19248 OF 2009 Page numbers 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No. 382 of 2004. Suit was filed for declaration that the cancellation of an agreement executed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendants is null and void and also for consequential injunction, and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. Admittedly the plaint schedule property, a play ground, under a license agreement was permitted to be used by the plaintiffs in the suit by the defendants and later that license agreement was cancelled. Legality and correctness of the cancellation of the license agreement was challenged in the above suit. Another suit was also filed by one trust which is alleged to have been handed over possession by the present plaintiffs, and it also sought for identical reliefs in the suit against the present defendants. Suits were ordered to be tried jointly and then posted in the special list for trial. Suit was W.P.(C).No.19248 OF 2009 Page numbers once listed on 17/11/2005 and subsequently on 02/11/2006. On the request of the parties, it was referred to adalath to see whether there is any chance of settlement. No settlement was effected and thereafter the plaintiffs in the respective suits moved applications for amendment of the plaint seeking an additional relief of compensation advancing a case that they had expended huge amount for reclaiming the ground to make it suitable as a play ground. The amendment applications moved in both suits, it is submitted, were dismissed by the learned Munsiff. The amendment applications moved by the petitioners / plaintiffs in O.S No.382/2004 was dismissed vide Ext.P3 order which is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C).No.19248 OF 2009 Page numbers 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P1, copy of the plaint in the suit and Ext.P3 order impugned in the petition, I find no reason to interfere with the order disallowing the amendment application. Suit has been filed seeking a relief of a declaration that the cancellation of the license agreement by the defendant is void and the amendment sought for even if it is a relief seeking compensation, no doubt will change the character of the suit and as such, the amendment was not allowable. For that reason also Ext.P3 order is only to be upheld. The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv