IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 3893 of 2011() ------------------------------------ OS.NO.400/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER -------------------- REGHU, S/O.RAVEENDRAN,KALLUPURACKAL, CHERIYAPALLAMTHURUTHU MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE,PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.R.SUDHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- NARAYANI,W/O.SUNDARAN, NEDIYARAE VEETTIL,CHERIYAPALLAMTHURUTHU MURI, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, PIN- 683 519. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.3893/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED IN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT DAETD 3.3.2006. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 12.9.2006 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO. 400/2006 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PARAVOOR. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S NO. 400/2006. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE I.A NO. 2908/09 IN O.S NO. 400/2006 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR AMENDMENT DATED 23.09.2010. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE I.A NO. 2909/2011 IN O.S NO. 400/2006 DATED 23.9.2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION TO I.A NO. 2908/2009 FILED BY PETITIONER DATED 4.11.2010. EXHIBIT P8. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2010 IN I.A NO. 2908/09 IN O.S NO. 400/2006. EXHIBIT P9. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2010 IN I.A NO. 2909/2011 IN O.S NO. 400/2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.3893 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Plaintiff in O.S. No.440 of 2006 of the court of learned Sub Judge, North Paravoor is the petitioner, challenging Ext.P9, order. Petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. Respondent filed Ext.P4, written statement contending that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and that petitioner failed to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed. Various other contentions are also raised in Ext.P4, as the learned counsel submits. While so, the suit was decreed ex parte and later the ex parte decree was set aside. Later came Ext.P5, application filed under Rule 9 of Order VIII, Rule 17 of Order VI and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). It is seen that Ext.P6, application is preferred by the respondent to receive additional written statement (obviously under Rule 9 of Order VIII of the Code though provision quoted is Sec.151 of the Code). Exhibit P9 is the order whereby the learned Sub Judge allowed the application and received additional written statement. O.P(C) No.3893 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. Challenge is to Ext.P9, order. Learned counsel contended that by amending the written statement or receiving additional written statement as the case may be the nature and character of the suit changed. 3. Be it a request for amendment of Ext.P4, written statement or receive additional written statement, contention that is sought to be raised is that due to the lapse of time there was escalation of price of property and hence if specific performance is ordered, respondent will be put to irreparable injury. The further contention sought to be raised is that respondent is entitled to adjust the advance amount towards the loss she suffered. 4. I am not inclined to think, be it amendment of the written statement or additional written statement that if above contentions are allowed to be raised that would alter the nature and character of the suit or defence. It continues to be one for specific performance of the agreement relied on by petitioner. It is only that respondent is permitted to raise certain additional contentions. Request was made and allowed before O.P(C) No.3893 of 2011 -: 3 :- commencement of the trial. Hence petitioner cannot be said to be prejudiced. I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv