IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2007 / 21ST ASHADHA 1929 WP(C).No. 34367 of 2005(N) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/06/2005 IN IA 2453/2004 IN OS.67/1999 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- SUDHAKARAN, S/O. MADATHIPARAMBIL KUNJAYYAPPAN, NADATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ROBSON PAUL SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.SONIYA.M SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DEVISAROJAM, W/O. NARAYATH RAJENDRAN, 29/657, KURUVATHIL LANE, SHORNUR ROAD, THRISSUR. 2. CHANDRIKA BALAN, W/O.BALAN, KUNDILINGAL HOUSE, MINOR ROAD, NADATHARA P.O. 3. AJAYAN, S/O. KUTTANELLUR MARASSARI- SANKUNNI, MINOR ROAD, NADATHARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN for R1 SRI.G.SREEKUMAR(CHELUR) for R2 SMT.P.K.NANDINI for R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.NO.34367/2005 N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.67/1999 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15/06/2005 IN I.A.NO.2453/2004 IN O.S.NO.67/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR. /TRUE COPY/ Kss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 34367 of 2005 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July, 2007 JUDGMENT The persuasive submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner notwithstanding, I am not inclined to accept her request that the application for amendment be allowed retrospectively i.e. with effect from the date of the plaint since the plaint contains pleadings regarding the oral agreement presently highlighted by the petitioner. In view of the principles laid by the Supreme Court in K.Raheja Constructions Ltd. v. Alliance Ministries and others (AIR 1995 SC 1768) and in Muni Lal v. The Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd. and another (AIR 1996 SC 642) it has to be ensured that the amendment does not cause any prejudice to the respondents/defendants. In other words, it has to be ensured that by the amendment the petitioner does not get away from the bar of limitation if the same has already been set in. WPC No.34367/2005 2 Accordingly, even as I set aside the impugned order and allow I.A.2453/2004, there will be clarification that the amendment will become operative only with effect from the date of the amendment application. The question of limitation will be raised as an issue if such a contention is raised by the defendants through the additional written statement to be field by the defendant. That issue should also be decided along with the other issues in the suit. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. Dpk