IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7234 of 2008(J) ------------------------------------- OS.178/2003 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------ HAMSA P., REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SARMATH KHAN, VENGERI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- CORPORATION OF CALICUT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 7234 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred to set aside Ext.P4 order, i.e. the order in I.A.800/08 in O.S.178/03 of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode. The suit is one for injunction restraining the defendant, Corporation of Calicut from recovering an amount of Rs.1,61,280/- on the basis of a demand notice. The defendant filed a written statement denying the contentions in the plaint. The plaintiff has filed the suit on the averment that he is the licencee of the shop room and the defendant is the licensor of that shop room and the defendant has unauthorizedly enhanced the licence fee and demand him to pay licence fee. 2. Now, by the proposed amendment the plaintiff wants to take away the plea of licence and substitute it with a lease. I am not going to say anything on the interpretation of the document. But when the plaintiff institutes a suit in W.P.C 7234 OF 2008 -:2:- the Court with both his eyes opened in terms or on the nomenclature of the document, at a later stage he cannot be permitted to resile from the original plaint and set up a totally new case of lease instead of licence. Decisions cited by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner reported in Beena v. Ramachandra Rao [2004 (2) KLT 336(SC)] is a decision relating to the interpretation of a document whether it amounts to a lease or licence. That decision cannot be applied in an amendment application and therefore I do not propose to interfere with the order of the Court below. Therefore the writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-