IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 24044 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.1099/2007 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SRIDHARAN, S/O. NANU, MANIMANGALAM, VELAPPAYA VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN MR.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT: --------------- BINDU, W/O. KOCHATH VALSAN AND D/O PUTHUKULANGARA SANKRANKUTTY, PUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, POTTOOR VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24044 of 2009(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PLAINTI IN O.S.NO.1099/2007 DTD. 29.10.2007 EXT.P2: WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.1099/2007 DTD.30.1.2008. EXT.P3: I.ANO.4916/2009 DTD. 10.8.2009. EXT.P4: OBJECTION IN I.A.NO.4916/2009 DTD.11.8.2009 EXT.P5: ORDER IN I.A.NO.4916/2009 DTD. 13.8.2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL .... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24044 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To pass an order setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.4916 of 2009 in O.S.No.1099/2007 by the 2nd Additional Sub Court, Thrissur in the interest of justice.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1099 of 2007 on the file of the 2nd Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. Suit is one for money based on a pronote, and the respondent is the defendant. Suit claim is resisted by the defendant filing a written statement. Petitioner/plaintiff moved an application to amend the plaint to correct the place where the pronote was executed and also the date as to the cause of action, since there was some mistake over the date with reference to the pronote. The amendment sought for was objected to by the defendant filing Ext.P4 objections. Learned Sub Judge after hearing both sides dismissed the amendment application holding that the amendment is highly belated. Ext.P5 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P5 order is challenged in the writ W.P.(C).No.24044 of 2009 - O 2 petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Notice was given to the respondent. But, after acceptance of notice the respondent remains absent. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Having regard to the submissions made and perusing Ext.P5 order with reference to other exhibits tendered in the writ petition, I find that the learned Sub Judge was not justified in dismissing the application for amendment moved by the petitioner/plaintiff. Suit had been listed for trial was one among the reasons to hold the application was highly belated. By allowing the amendment, court below has opined, the character of the suit would be changed. Considering the scope of the amendment sought for correction of the year shown in the cause of action stated and also regarding the place of execution of the pronote, I find none of the reasons adverted for dismissal of the application can be approved. Cause of action, needless to point out, is a bundle of facts on which the plaintiff canvasses for substantiating the suit claim and not the particular date stating the cause of action for the suit is referred to. The year in the W.P.(C).No.24044 of 2009 - O 3 pronote 2006 was wrongly stated as 2007 in the cause of action referred in the plaint and that was sought to be corrected by amendment. Prima facie, the statement relating the year was a mistake and it should have been allowed to be corrected. Similar principle is applicable in the case as to the place of execution of the pro note in the plaint. Delay in filing the petition in the given facts of the case and the nature of the amendment sought for could not have been given much significance. Even if that be so, it could have been taken care of compensating the other party in terms. Since the respondent has not appeared before this Court, despite accepting notice, I need not dilate on that point further. Ext.P5 order is set aside and the court below is directed to allow the petitioner to carryout the amendment in the plaint as sought for in Ext.P3 application. Writ petition is disposed of as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-