IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4416 of 2008(A) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 3704/07 IN OS.656/2005 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): 1ST DEFENDANT --------------- THOMAS, S/O. JEROME, AGED 52, NELLISTANATHU VEEDU, PADAPPAKKARA, MULAVANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF --------------- REETHA, D/O. JEROME, NELLISTANATHU THEKKETHIL VEEDU, PADAPPAKKARA, MULAVANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4416 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The first defendant in O.S.No.656/05 on the file of the court of the Additional Munsiff of Kollam challenges in this Writ Petition the order dated 18th August 2007 in I.A.No.3704 of 2007, by which the court below rejected the prayer for amendment of the written statement to incorporate a counter claim. 2. The suit of the year 2005. It was listed for trial on 18.8.2007. The petitioner applied to remove the case from the list. That application was rejected. Thereafter, he filed an application to amend the written statement to incorporate the counter claim. The case put forward by the petitioner is that though he instructed the counsel to raise the counter claim, it was not done. The court below did not accept this case put forward by the petitioner. The court below also held that if the petitioner is allowed to amend the written statement at this stage of the litigation, it would delay the trial and disposal of the suit. The court below also held that the application is without WPC No. 4416/2009 2 any bonafides. 3. The contention taken in the written statement that document No.2574/1984 is a document fraudulently created. It is also stated in paragraph No.2 of the written that that document was not acted upon. Fraud is also alleged. 4. The amendment sought for is to raise a counter claim seeking a declaration that the document referred to above is invalid and inoperative. On going through the written statement and the application for amendment, I am of the view that the court below was justified in dismissing the application for amendment of the written statement. The Writ Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of the Writ Petition will not affect the rights of the petitioner to pursue his contentions in the written statement. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl