IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 8316 of 2009(O) -------------------------------------- OS.NO.304/2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM. .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. JOY JOSEPH ,AGED 46 YEARS, THULUSSERIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA P.O, IRAVIMANGALAM KARA, MANJOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT , PIN -686 613. 2. SALOMA JOY, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.JOY JOSEPH,THULUSSERIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA P.O,IRAVIMANGALAM KARA, MANJOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT , PIN- 686 613. BY ADVS. MR.P.SANJAY, MR.BIJU MEENATTOOR, MR.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI, MR.J.ABHILASH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. JOSEPH @ OUSEPH, AGED 70 YEARS, THULUSSERIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA P.O, IRAVIMANGALAM KARA, MANJOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 613. *2. ELIYAMMA JOSEPH, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.JOSEPH, THULUSSERIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA P.O, IRAVIMANGALAM KARA, MANJOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686 613. *3. BENNY JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH THULUSSERIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA P.O, IRAVIMANGALAM KARA, MANJOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 613.(NOW RESIDING AT 'ANUGRAHA' 23/488,MARKET ROAD, NEAR MISSION SCHOOL, THRIPUNITHURA). W.P.(C). NO.8316/2009-O: *4. SHOJI JOSEPH, W/O.BENNY JOSEPH, THULUSSERIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA P.O, IRAVIMANGALAM KARA, MANJOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 613.(NOW RESIDING AT 'ANUGRAHA' 23/488,MARKET ROAD, NEAR MISSION SCHOOL, THRIPUNITHURA). * RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER ORDER DATED 19/03/09 IN MEMO C.F.NO.4117/09. R1 BY ADV. MR.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8316 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.304/2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Vaikom. First respondent is the plaintiff in that suit. Suit was one for perpetual prohibitory injunction. Petitioners moved an application for amendment of their written statement at the time when the case came up for trial. The amendment sought for was based on a settlement purported to have been arrived by the parties to the suit in a proceeding before the Kerala Womens Commission. Learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, dismissed that application holding that it is not necessary for an effective adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of that order, this writ petition is filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioners and the first respondent. Two other respondents previously proceeded in the petition, have been deleted as they are not parties to the suit. W.P.(C).No.8316 of 2009 - O 2 3. Learned Munsiff has not appreciated the cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application and there is nonapplication of mind in disposing of that application, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Countering the argument, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the suit is only for prohibitory injunction and in the nature of the issue arising for adjudication the proposed amendment which was within the knowledge of the petitioners even before filing of the written statement, that too moved at the time of trail was rightly and correctly repelled and negatived by the learned Munsiff and no interference with that order is called for. Perusing Ext.P2 application moved by the petitioners for amending the written statement and Ext.P3 order, I find that the case of the defendant is that a settlement had been arrived in Kerala Womens Commission and the award passed thereunder has the effect of a decree. If that be so, even without an amendment to the written statement, defendants can very well produce that award and canvass its legal force to resist the suit claim of the plaintiff. The amendment application was filed at a W.P.(C).No.8316 of 2009 - O 3 time when the case came up in the lis with another application seeking removal of it from the list. Learned Munsiff has declined to allow the application for amendment filed at a belated state. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Munsiff. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-