IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31914 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.2438/2000 of I ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREEPRIYA, D/O.KUNNATH MOHANDAS, RAMANCHIRA MADAM ROAD, VELIYANNOOR DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, TALUK, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MOHANDAS, RAMANCHIRA MADAM ROAD, VELIYANNOOR DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PADMA S.MENON, W/O.PANDALATH SREEDHARA MENON, PUTHOORKARA DESOM, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. BANK OF BARODA, REP.BY BRANCH MANAGER, PARK HOUSE, SWARAJ ROUND, NORTH, THRISSUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31914 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.2438 of 2000 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Suit was one for a declaration that the first defendant has no right over the fixed deposit receipt scheduled in the plaint and it belongs absolutely to the plaintiff. Suit was dismissed for default. Prior to the dismissal of the suit plaintiff had moved an application for amendment of the plaint and that application was also dismissed by the court on the date the suit was dismissed. Plaintiff moved an application for restoring the suit under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That application was dismissed. Appeal preferred against the dismissal of that application was later allowed and the suit restored to file. W.P.(C).No.31914 OF 2009 Page numbers The writ petition has been filed for reviewing the order passed by the court below dismissing the amendment application moved by the plaintiff earlier for amending the plaint. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the court below has passed an order on merits in the amendment application despite restoration of the suit, it may not reconsider the amendment application is the grievance raised by the counsel for appropriate orders on the amendment application which had been rejected by that court. In view of the restoration of the suit it is open to the petitioner to bring to the notice of the court the circumstances under which his amendment application had been dismissed. There is no bar under law for the court below to examine the amendment application afresh if it is found that a reconsideration of that application is W.P.(C).No.31914 OF 2009 Page numbers required for giving a quietus to the controversies arising for adjudication in the suit with finality. Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition is disposed reserving the right of the petitioner to seek appropriate orders on the amendment application moved which had been disposed earlier by the trial court. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv