IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2841 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.240/2009 of PRL.MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. JAGANNATHA SHENOY, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOVINDA RAO, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.MANGALORE GANESHA BEEDI WORKS, VINOBA ROAD, MYSORE, KARNATAKA STATE. 2. ANANTHESWARA KAMMATH, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. LATE PANDURANGA KAMMATH, R/AT NEAR OLD POST OFFICE MANJESHWARA, HOSABETTU VILLAGE, POST MANJESHWARA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.KRISHNA BHATT, S/O.LATE VITTALA BHAT, RETIRED BANK MANAGER, R/AT TEMPLE SQUIRE, MANJESHWARA, HOSABETTU VILLAGE, POST MANJESHWARA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. M.GANESH BHATT, S/O.M.LAXMAN BHAT, RETIRED BANK MANAGER, R/AT TEMPLE SQUIRE, MANJESHWARA, HOSABETTU VILLAG, POST MANJESHWARA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. SRIMAD ANANTESHWAR TEMPLE, MANJESHWAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL OF TRUSTEES, P.O.MNJESHWAR, KASARAGOD TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P. (C) No. 2841 of 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 29-01-2010 JUDGMENT The Writ Petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 240 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kasaragod. The said suit as originally filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein was one for accounts and for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to convene the meeting of the committee concerned and devotees of the 3rd respondent temple and place the audited balance sheet of the kumbabishekam function within the time fixed by the Court. Since the plaint did not contain averments which were sufficient to justify the decree for mandatory injunction which was also claimed in the suit as originally filed, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 2162 of 2009 to incorporate the necessary amendment to the plaint to support the additional relief of mandatory injunction. The said application was W.P. (C) No. 2841 of 2010 -:2:- opposed by the writ petitioners contending inter alia that the proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the suit apart from being belated. The court below overruled the said objections and allowed the amendment as prayed for as per Ext.P7 order dated 8-12-2009. It is the said order which is assailed in this Writ Petition. 2. This is not a case where a suit for accounts was subsequently converted into one for mandatory injunction. The suit as originally laid was also for a decree of mandatory injunction for which the plaintiff wanted to incorporate the averments in support of the said relief. The amendment sought for would not in any way change the nature and character of the suit because the suit continues to be one for accounts and for mandatory injunction as aforesaid. Under these circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the Writ Petitioner that the proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the suit. Ext.P7 order does not suffer from any illegality or W.P. (C) No. 2841 of 2010 -:3:- irregularity so as to warrant interference by this Court. The petitioners herein can file an additional written statement and can also substantiate their contentions on the merits to have the suit dismissed. I see no grounds to interfere with Ext.P7 order. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) /TRUE COPY/ ani. P.S.TO JUDGE