IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 257 of 2011(O) ------------------------ OS.517/2006 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT-II, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER : ------------------ E.T.RAJENDRAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, "SREE NILAYAM", PUTHUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- E.T.BHARGHAVI AMMA, AGED 78 YEARS, W/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, "SREE NILAYAM", MUZHUPPURATH, KODUVALLY P.O., PUTHUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE 673 001. ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.(C).No.257 of 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S.No.517 of 2006, on the file of the court of of the Principal Munsiff - II, Kozhikode, challenges the order dated 3rd November, 2010 in I.A.No.2882 of 2010 by which the court below dismissed the application for amendment of the plaint. In the plaint, the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant, who is the mother of the plaintiff, agreed to sell the property belonging to her to the plaintiff. An agreement was executed between the parties. The plaintiff and the defendant are residing in the house in the property. The suit was filed alleging that the defendant obstructed the plaintiff from removing the coconuts kept in the shed. The relief in the suit is for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff from removing the coconuts from O.P.(C) No.257/2011 2 the shed and from plucking the coconuts from the coconut trees. 2. The amendment sought for is to raise a contention that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, that only because of the default of the defendant, the transaction could not be completed, that the plaintiff is in possession of the property and that he has improved the property spending considerable amounts. The court below dismissed the application on the ground that the averment sought to be incorporated in the plaint have no connection with the reliefs sought for in the suit. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to the averments in the written statement which would indicate the following. The suit was originally filed before the Munsiffs' Court, Kozhikode, which had no territorial jurisdiction. The plaint was returned for presentation before the proper court, O.P.(C) No.257/2011 3 as per the order dated 6.12.1991. The parties were directed to appear before the proper court on 12.3.1992. However, the plaintiff presented the plaint before the proper court only on 23.8.1996. The application filed for condonation of delay was dismissed. C.M.A.No.27 of 1999 was filed by the plaintiff against that order. That appeal was also dismissed. A revision was filed before the High Court. As per the order in C.R.P.No.883 of 1999, the suit was taken on file. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/ defendant that from 1991 to 2006, the plaintiff was not proceeding with the case bonafide and though the suit was taken on file in 2006, the application for amendment was filed only in 2010, when the case was listed for trial. 4. I have gone through the averments in the plaint and the reliefs prayed for. I have also gone through the averments sought to be incorporated in the plaint by way of amendment. The amendment sought to be introduced have absolutely no O.P.(C) No.257/2011 4 relevance in so far as the relief sought for in the plaint are concerned. The court below was fully right in dismissing the application. No grounds are made out for interference. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl