IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27681 of 2008(U) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.08.2008 IN IA.939/2008 IN OS.19/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- C.C. KUNJABDULLA, C.C HOUSE, CUSTOMS ROAD, VADAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA-3. BY ADV. SRI.C.VATHSALAN SRI.GHOSH YOHANNAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENTS: ---------------- CHERANTAVIDA MAHAMOOD, S/O. MAURMU, AGED 64 YEARS, SHAFEELAS HOUSE, POOVADAN GATE, VADAKARA AMSOM DESOM, P.O. VADAKARA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== W.P.(C) No. 27681 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The defendant in O.S. No. 19 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Vadakara is the writ petitioner. The said suit instituted by the respondent herein is for the recovery of the balance amount due in respect of a transaction under which the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.85,000/-. The date of cause of action as originally pleaded in the plaint is 07.01.2005 which was sought to be corrected as 17.01.2005. The said application for amendment was opposed by the writ petitioner contending inter alia that the correction was with the sinister motive of getting over the plea of limitation since the suit was filed only on 08.01.2008 which is just outside limitation in case the date of transaction is 07.01.2005 as originally alleged. The court below overruled the objection and allowed the amendment as per Ext.P5 order dated 04.08.2008. The trial court has, however, given liberty to the petitioner/defendant to disprove the contention raised by the plaintiff during trial and also to challenge W.P.(C) NO. 27681/2008 : 2: the bona fides of the plaintiff's contention that the date of transaction was wrongly shown in the plaint by mistake as 07.01.2005 instead of 17.01.2005. This, I think, will take care of the objection of the defendant in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan - 2001(6) SCC 163 as relied on by this Court in Subramanian v. Aboobacker Koya (2003 (3) KLT 819). If after trial, the court below accepts the defendant's contention that the application for amendment was filed with the sole intention of getting over the bar of limitation, then it is certainly open to that court to apply the dictum laid by the Apex Court in K. Raheja Constructions Ltd. v. Alliance Ministries - AIR 1995 SC 1768. In view of this position, I see no ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court. This writ petition is disposed of as above. Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. W.P.(C) NO. 27681/2008 : 3: rv