IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 10523 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/03/2009 IN IA 620/2009 IN OS.446/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MAYTAS INFRA LIMITED, 6-3-1186/5/A, III FLOOR, AMOGH PLAZA, BEGUMPET,HYDERABAD, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, TAGORE YARAGORLA. BY MR.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI MR.ARUN K.R. MR.ANUKARSHAW MR.ANEETA SIMPSON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. JACSONS VENEERS AND PANELS PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, JACOB THOMAS, ATLANTIS JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682015. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, M.G.ROAD,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1) MR.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.10523/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. NO.446/2008 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE IIND ADDL. SUB JUDGE, ERNAKULAM. P2:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION IA. NO.3085/08 IN OS. NO.446/09 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE IIND ADDL. SUB JUDGE, ERNAKULAM. P3:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION, IA. NO.4011/08 IN OS. 446/08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE IIND ADDL. SUB JUDGE, ERNAKULAM. P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 21.5.08 IN WP(C) NO.14030/08 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19.7.09 IN IA. NO.4011/08 OF THE IIND ADDL. SUB JUDGE, ERNAKULAM. P6:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DT. 1.7.08 FILED BY THE IST DEFENDANT IN OS. NO.446/08 BEFORE THE IIND ADDL. SUB JUDGE, ERNAKULAM. P7:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE IST DEFENDANT IN OS. NO.446/08 BEFORE THE IIND ADDL. SUB JUDGE, ERNAKULAM. P8:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION IA. NO.7277/08 IN OS. NO.446/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER 2ND DEFENDANT BEFORE THE IIND ADDL. SUB JUDGE, ERNAKULAM. P9:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF IA. NO.7277/08 IN OS. NO.445/08. P10:- COPY OF THE IA. NO.620/09 IN OS. NO.446/08 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT- PLAINTIFF. P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 3.3.09 IN IA. NO.620/09 IN OS. 446/08 OF THE IIND ADDL. SUB JUDGE, ERNAKULAM. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10523 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for and pursue the records in I.A No. 620/2009 in O.S No. 446/2008. ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order in I.A No. 620/2009 in O.S No. 446/2008 on the file of the IInd Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. iii) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. W.P.(C).No.10523 OF 2009 Page numbers iv) Award costs of these proceedings. 2. Petitioner is the second defendant in O.S. No. 446/2008 on the file of the IInd Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. The first respondent is the plaintiff, and second respondent , the first defendant in the suit. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction. Later the plaintiff moved an application for amending the plaint so as to claim damages and also additional reliefs. To the amendment application the first defendant, the bank has no objection. The petitioner / second defendant was served with copy of the amendment application. When the amendment application came up for consideration on the request of the second defendant, opportunity was provided to file objections. But on the adjournment date, the second defendant did not file objection. The court W.P.(C).No.10523 OF 2009 Page numbers below thereupon passed Ext.P11 order allowing the amendment application expressing the view the proposed amendment is necessary for resolving the controversy involved in the suit. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of Ext.P11 order the writ petition is filed seeking the afore mentioned reliefs invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned counsel for the additional second respondent / bank submitted that it has no objection in setting aside Ext.P11 order, to provide opportunity to the petitioner to file objections to the amendment application and the court below passing orders afresh on the petition after considering such objections. The petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the first respondent contending that sufficient opportunity W.P.(C).No.10523 OF 2009 Page numbers had been provided for filing objections and still it was not filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, time was sought for on the date when Ext.P11 order was passed for the reason that the defendant is having its office at a place outside the state. Having regard to the submissions made and being satisfied that an opportunity should be provided to the petitioner to file its objection to the amendment application Ext.P11 order is set aside, with direction to the learned Sub Judge to consider the matter afresh after providing an apportunity to the petitioner to file its objections. Petitioner to file its objections within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment. The court below shall hear and dispose of the amendment application (Ext.P10) within six weeks from the date of this judgment. Subject to the above observations the writ petition is closed. Hand over a copy of the W.P.(C).No.10523 OF 2009 Page numbers judgment to the counsel on both sides on usual terms, and transmit a copy to the court below forthwith. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv