IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2998 of 2009(F) ------------------------------------------ OS.326/2000 of MUN-MAGI COURT, PARAVOOR .................... PETITIONER: SAROJINI, D/O.LATE NARAYANI, 'AISWARAYA', NEDUNGOLAM.P.O, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENTS: 1. VASANTHY, D/O.KUNJIRAMAN,RESIDING AT PARAVILA VEEDU,THAZHAM SOUTH, CIRAKKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. SURESH BABU, DEVAMATHA HOUSE, NEDUNGOLAM.P.O, PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. LEELA, D/O.LEKSHMI, DEVAMATHA HOUSE, NEDUNGOLAM.P.O, PARAVUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.2998 of 2009 F -------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the second plaintiff in O.S.No. 326/00 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Paravoor in Kollam District. The suit is now eight years old. There were directions, both from this Court and from the District Court, to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. It appears that the court below could not abide by the directions by reason of several interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiffs in the suit. Petitioner/second plaintiff has come up with this writ petition at present assailing Exhibit P5 order dated 10.12.2008, whereby Exhibit P3 application filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. 2. It is submitted that the suit is in the list on 2.2.2009 and that the written statement in the suit was filed as early as on 7.5.2005. WPC 2998/09 2 Exhibit P5 order is dated 10.12.2008. It is seen that copy of the said order was applied for only on 22.12.2008 and this writ petition has been filed on 28.1.2009, obtaining copy of the order on 21.1.2009. Such delay has been caused to assail Exhibit P5 order when the suit itself is included for trial in the list on 2.2.2009. 3. The court below, in Exhibit P5 order, is seen to have found fault with the plaintiffs for protracting the trial of the case by filing petitions one after another, even on prior occasions, when the suit was posted for trial in the special list. Though copy of the plaint is not produced in this writ petition, it is seen from the available records and from the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner that the suit was filed for a declaration that the scheduled property belongs to them, they having effected the purchase though Document No.3005/1966 was got executed in the name of the original defendant Paramu WPC 2998/09 3 Gurudasan, the predecessor of the respondents; that the plaintiffs are in possession of the scheduled property; that the document executed by Paramu Gurudasan in relation thereto is null and void and for other consequential reliefs, inter alia, for setting aside a document executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and the subsequent document executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant. 4. The present amendment application is filed seeking for incorporation of a prayer for a declaration that the document got executed in favour of the original first defendant is void being violative of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. This is not a case which the plaintiffs had in the original plaint when they alleged that consideration was paid by them to get the document executed in favour of the original first defendant. Hence, the inconsistent pleas sought to be got incorporated by amendment of the WPC 2998/09 4 plaint as above has rightly been rejected by the court below. 5. It is seen that the court below has allowed certain corrections sought to be got effected by the amendment sought for vide Exhibit P3 application, while disallowing the main amendment sought for as per Exhibit P5 order. There is absolutely no merit in this writ petition filed assailing Exhibit P5 order passed by the court below and this writ petition has been filed with mala fide intention to protract the litigation to the extent possible, when the suit is in the list on 2.2.2009. The writ petition is dismissed. 30th January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv