IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2382 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------ IA. NO.1`152/2006 IN OS.25/2006 of SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... PETITIONER ---------------------- K.ARAVINDAN, AGED 50 YEARS,S/O. KORU, RESIDING AT KOONAMKOTTIL HOUSE, MALAVAYAL.P.O., WAYANADU DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.A.V.JAMES SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL SRI.O.S.JAFARKHAN SRI.M.J.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, SULTHAN BATHERY BRANCH, SULTHAN BATHERY.P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. PIN-673592. 2. SURYA PRABHA, AGED 47 YEARS, D/O. SREEDHARAN, SREE VILASAM, HOUSE, KOLERI, POOTHADI AMSOM & DESOM, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD-673592. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss OPC. NO.2382/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE OS. 25/2006 PENDING BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUB COURT SULTHAN BATHERY. P2:- COPY OF THE IIA. NO.1152/2009 IN OS. 25/06 PENDING BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUB COURT SULTHAN BATHERY. P3:- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA. 1152/2009 IN OS. 25/2006 OF THE HONOURABLE SUB COURT, SULTHAN BATHERY DT.D 11.2.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.2382 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner who is the second defendant in O.S.No.25 of 2006 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Sulthanbathery is aggrieved by Ext.P3, order dated February 11, 2011 on I.A.No.1152 of 2006. That was an application filed by petitioner to amend the written statement to deny whatever he had admitted in the original written statement. That request was disallowed by the learned Sub Judge. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner was placed under mentally difficult situation when the written statement was originally filed, he could not bring on record all legitimate contentions which he had to raise and hence he filed I.A.No.1152 of 2006 for amendment of the written statement. I have gone through the order under challenge. 2. First respondent filed a suit for recovery of money against petitioner and second respondent who is none other than the wife of petitioner (though she is described as former wife it is conceded that there is no divorce). Petitioner, it is stated was the guarantor for the loan availed by the second respondent. In the original written statement petitioner admitted that loan was availed by second respondent. There was no denial of his being the guarantor to the loan. There was no denial of his creating equitable mortgage for repayment of the loan. After three years of institution of the suit and filing of original written statement petitioner came with an application to amend the written statement to contend that he was neither a guarantor nor had created equitable mortgage in OP(C)No.2382/2011 2 favour of first respondent. He wanted to contend that the first respondent misused the documents he had entrusted to it with respect to another loan. He also wanted to contend that the suit is barred by limitation. 3. Learned counsel has contended that on account of mental depression petitioner had attempted to commit suicide in December, 2003 and was under treatment and it was in such a situation petitioner had filed the original written statement. Now he is under the care of his sister. Learned Sub Judge observed in the order under challenge that in the original written statement of the petitioner there is no dispute regarding the transaction or his being a guarantor or creating equitable mortgage and now he has turned round to deny all allegations. It is seen that case is included in the list for trial on 05.08.2011 and it is almost after three years of filing the suit that the application for amendment was filed. The impugned order was passed on 11.02.2011 and a copy of the order was applied for only on 05.06.2011. It was received on 25.06.2011 and this Original Petition is filed on 15.07.2011. Having heard learned counsel and gone through the records I am not inclined to think that circumstances justify grant of permission to the petitioner to amend the written statement. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks