IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8152 of 2009(O) AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.422/2009 IN OS.46/1999 OF SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA . PETITIONER: --------------- P.M.CHANDRAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, EDUCATIONAL INSTRUCTOR, RESIDING AT SURABHI, MYLOM MURI, MYLOM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. PRESIDENT, N.S.S.KARAYOGAM NO.1001, MYLOM VILLAGE. 2. M.G.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.K.GOVINDAN PILLAI, MANUVILA HOUSE, AILAM MURIYIL, MYLOM VILLAGE. 3. A.G.NARAYANA PILLAI, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.K.GOPALA PILLAI, AREEKKAL PUTHEN VEETTIL, MYLOM VILLAGE. 4. K.PRADHEEP KUMAR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.K.KRISHNA PILLAI, KOTTARA HOUSE, AREEKKAL PUTHEN VEETTIL, MYLOM VILLAGE. 5. KUNJAN PILLAI, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, SREVIHARIL, AREEKKAL PUTHEN VEETTIL, MYLOM VILLAGE. 6. GOPALAKRISHNA VARIYAR, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.SANKARA VARIAR, THALAMANGALATHU PADINJARE WARIAM, MYLOM VILLAGE. 7. A.R.RAMADAS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, AREEKKAL PUTHEN VEETTIL, MYLOM VILLAGE. 8. S.VISWAMBARAN PILLAI, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, ASHA BHAVAN, AREEKKAL PUTHEN VEETTIL, MYLOM VILLAGE. 9. S.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.SANKARA PILLAI, SITHARA, AREEKKAL PUTHEN VEETTIL, MYLOM VILLAGE. 10. K.VIJAYA KRISHNAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KESAVA PILLAI, KEEZHEETTU CHURUVILA, AREEKKAL PUTHEN VEETTIL, MYLOM VILLAGE. 11. K.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.K.KUNJAN PILLAI, KANNATTU VEETTIL, AREEKKAL PUTHEN VEETTIL, MYLOM VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 8152 OF 2009 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th March, 2009 JUDGMENT The writ petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.46 of 1999, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kottarakkara. In the written statement, the defendant stated that the suit is not maintainable. On 20.2.2009, the defendant filed an application to amend the written statement to incorporate a contention that the first plaintiff, being an unregistered association of members and being not a legal entity, cannot sue or be sued and that the plaintiffs cannot claim settlement of accounts as against the defendant. The court below dismissed the application as highly belated. The evidence in the case is almost over. The application was filed at that stage. It cannot be said that the court below has committed any error in dismissing the application. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the written statement itself the defendant has raised a contention that the suit is not maintainable and what is sought to be done is to give a gloss to the contention and to provide more particulars. He submitted that it is a question of law and it can be raised at any point of time. If the question of maintainability of the suit is a pure question of law, even without any W.P.(C) NO.8152 OF 2009 :: 2 :: amendment of the written statement, the defendant could raise that contention. For that purpose, there need not be any amendment. I do not think, it is proper to interfere with the order passed by the court below. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/