IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 7271 of 2009(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.3034/2008 IN OS.416/2003 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): DEFENDANTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR. 2. SECRETARY, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR. BY ADV. MR.V.KRISHNA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- SUBHASH CHANDRAN, S/O.PADINJARETHALAKKAL, (LATE) NANU EZHUTHASSAN, WEST FORT DESOM, ARANATHUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.VIJAYAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.7271/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT. P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.3034/08. P4: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.3034/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A): COPY OF THE PLAN AND REPORT DTD. 15/06/06 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN O.S.416/03 BEFORE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT. R1(B): COPY OF THE PLAN AND REPORT DTD. 20/02/08 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN O.S.416/03 BEFORE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.7271 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 3rd June, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: 1. To call for the records leading to Ext.P5 order of the Sub Court, Thrissur in I.A.No.3034 of 2008 in O.S.No.416 of 2003 dated 19.1.2009 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. 2. To issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction that this hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.416/03 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur. The above suit for fixation of boundary and other consequential reliefs was filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The crux of the dispute involved in the suit relate to the acquisition made at the instance of the defendants/Devaswom from the property of the plaintiff for extension of a medical centre to ameliorate the services rendered to the worshippers coming to Guruvayur temple. An W.P.C.No.7271/09 - 2 - advocate commission was appointed to measure out the property on the request made by the plaintiff and he filed a report and plan with the assistance of a surveyor. After such report was filed and evidence in the case commenced, the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint so as to have an additional relief of recovery of possession. The amendment, according to the plaintiff, was necessitated on the basis of the findings made by the Commissioner that some more area than what was covered by the acquisition proceedings and records therein had been taken from his property. The application for amendment was vehemently opposed by the defendants raising among other contentions, the amendment sought for after the trial commenced is violative of the provision under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The learned Sub Judge, after hearing both sides, passed Ext.P5 order allowing the amendment. Impeaching the correctness of the order contending that it is improper and not legal and no reason has been set out for allowing the amendment, the defendants have filed this Writ Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court for annulling that order. 3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that for a proper and W.P.C.No.7271/09 - 3 - complete adjudication of the disputes involved, the proposed amendment sought for, which was allowed by the court below, is absolutely essential and there is no ground for interfering with the order passed by the learned Sub Judge. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointing out that a cryptic order has been passed by the learned Sub Judge without adverting to the serious objections raised by the defendants and also overlooking the embargo covered by Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. that once the trial started, the amendment of the pleading in the absence of exceptional circumstances should not be entertained. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances, I find that rather than driving the plaintiff to a separate suit for a fair and proper adjudication of the suit resolving whatever dispute existing between the parties in respect of the subject matter, the amendment sought for by the plaintiff and allowed by the learned Sub Judge was essential. So much so, I cannot find fault with the order passed by the learned Sub Judge though he could have considered the objections and given a reasoned order why the amendment has to be allowed. Discretion exercised by the learned Sub Judge in allowing the amendment application though it was belatedly filed, in W.P.C.No.7271/09 - 4 - the given facts of the case, does not call for any interference. Naturally, the defendants will get reasonable opportunity to file additional written statement to the amendment once it is incorporated in the plaint. However, a grievance is raised by the learned counsel for the defendants that the suit is prolonged in view of the proposed amendment and there is no finality of the litigation. The learned Sub Judge is directed to give top priority to the hearing of the suit and dispose it as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of this judgment after affording sufficient opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support of their respective case. The Writ Petition is disposed as above. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE