IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 36586 of 2007(E) -------------------------- OS.985/2005 of PRL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ PRABOSH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, MANAKKATTUMPADI HOUSE, PAZHAYI DESOM, NENMANIKKARA, THRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. GOPI, S/O.KANENGATTIL VELAPPAKUTTY PAZHAYI DESOM, NENMANIKKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. SUNILDAS, S/O.KANENGATTIL VELAPPAKUTTY, DO. DO. 3. DEEPTHI, W/O.PRABOSH, MANAKKATTUMPADI HOUSE, PAZHAYI DESOM, NENMANIKKARA, THRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No. 36586/07 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND PLAN FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF Court, IRINJALAKUDA IN O.S.No.985/05. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF AMENDMENT APPLICATION I.A.No.1851/07 AND THE ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.10.2007 IN I.A.No.1851/07 IN O.S.No.985/05. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.No.985/05. TRUE COPY M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 36586 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Principal Munsiff, Irinjalakuda, whereby the learned Munsiff refused to permit the writ petitioner to incorporate the plea of adverse possession in the written statement. The main reason for disallowing it was that when the CMA was being heard the petitioner filed an affidavit undertaking to demolish the construction being made in the B schedule property, in case the court finds that it belongs to the respondents. It does not necessarily mean that he will not raise the plea of adverse possession. It is a settled law that petitioner can even raise inconsistent plea in the written statement. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that when the Commissioner had inspected the property he submitted a report showing that the property under dispute belongs to the respondents and that the petitioner has come to the court at a belated stage with a prayer to incorporate the plea of adverse possession and limitation. Adverse possessions and limitation is a WPC NO 36586/07 2 matter, which has to be pleaded and proved by the petitioner. Since the Apex court is of the view that one has to be very liberal in allowing an application for amendment of the written statement and as the very plea does not take away the character of the suit or change the nature of the original case, it is desirable to allow the application for amendment. Needless to say that the petitioner can file a replication raising his contentions. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 36586/07 3 WPC NO 36586/07 4