IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 10958 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/03/2009 IN IA. 228/2009 IN OS.155/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.KUTTIKKATTU KUNJU MOIDEEN, VEMBALLUR DESOM,SREE NARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ MUHAMMED, S/O.PONNATH KOCHU, VEMBALLUR DESOM, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 10958/2009-O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AMENDMENT PETITION I.A. NO.228 OF 2009 IN O.S. NO.155/2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A. IN O.S.155/2009. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/03/2009 IN I.A. NO.228 OF 2009 IN O.S. NO.155/2005 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.10958 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.155 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kodungallur. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction, and the respondent is the defendant. An amendment application moved by the defendant to carry out some amendment in his written statement, without considering the objections filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was allowed by the court by Ext.P3 order, is the challenge raised in the writ petition. Though notice was served on the respondent and also on his counsel as directed by this Court, the respondent has not entered appearance. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that before orders were passed on the application for amendment, plaintiff had filed objection. Ext.P2 is stated to WPC.10958/09 2 be the copy of the objection. The court below in Ext.P3 order has stated that no counter was filed to the amendment application, and for that solitary reason, it is seen, the amendment application moved by the defendant was allowed. Setting aside Ext.P3 order, I direct the court below to consider Ext.P2 objection raised by the plaintiff and pass appropriate orders in the amendment application, after hearing both sides. Writ petition is disposed with the above direction. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp