IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 298 of 2008(I) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3.11.07 ON IA 404/2005 IN AS.123/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, N.PARAVUR OS.523/1992 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,N.PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. S.R.SUBHASH,AGED 36,S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN ORAVANTHURUTHIL HOUSE, KALADY. 2. ISHA SEKHARAN, AGED 30 ORUKKUTHIL HOUSE, PATTAL PERIUMBAVOOR. 3. LILLY DIVAKARAN, AGED 25 KAPRANGATTU VEEDU,KANJOOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- M.V.POULOSE,S/O. VARU,MANJALI VEETTIL CHENGAL DESOM, KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 298 OF 2008 I -------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred against the order in I.A.No.404/05 in A.S.123/02 passed by the Additional District Court, North Paravur. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, North Paravur in O.S.No.523/92. The appellate court allowed the amendment application and therefore remanded the matter to the court below for carrying out the amendment and for further trial and disposal. Against the said order, F.A.O.No.364/07 is filed and is pending before this court. The order of remand as seen from the order was only on the basis of the allowing of the amendment application and for giving further opportunity to the plaintiff in the case. So the real question to be considered in the F.A.O. is also regarding the correctness of the order passed by the Additional District Court, North Paravur in the amendment application. I feel that this order can very well be challenged in the F.A.O. itself as a ground and therefore multiciplicity of W.P.(C)No.298/08-I 2 proceedings can be avoided. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the present writ petitioner is entitled to challenge the correctness of the order in I.A.No.404/05 in F.A.O.No.364/07. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. dsn