IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6130 of 2009(O) ------------------------- OS.439/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- SALIM SIDDIQUE, S/O.M.P.ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED 62 YEARS, SALIM MANZIL, ARYAD SOUTH VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.R.AZAD BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- R.ANAND KUMAR, S/O.RAMAMOORTHY REDDIAR, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT SABARI, ALAPPUZHA WEST VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. MR.C.S.MANU, MR.S.K.PREMRAJ, MR.ABHILASH AKBAR, MR.T.V.SIVAPRASAD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.6130/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.439 OF 2007 OF SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA. P2: COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IN THE ABOVE SUIT. P3: COPY OF THE PETITION FOR IMPLEADING (I.A.NO.850 OF 2008). P4: COPY OF THE PETITION FOR AMENDMENT (I.A.NO.848 OF 2008). P5: COPY OF OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE DEFENDANT. P6: COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.850 OF 2008. P7: COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.848 OF 2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.6130 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 10th September, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P6 and P7 orders passed in O.S.No.439 of 2007 of the Sub Court, Alappuzha.” 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.439 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. The above suit is one for specific performance filed by the respondent. Suit claim was resisted by the petitioner/defendant disputing the genuineness of the agreement of sale. An attachment order was passed over the property covered by the agreement of sale. After such attachment, it was disclosed that petitioner/defendant had executed a settlement deed in favour of his son before the date of agreement of sale. The respondent, thereupon, moved two applications; one for amendment of the plaint seeking a declaration that the settlement deed executed by the petitioner in favour of his son is a sham document and void, and the other for impleadment of the petitioner as the second defendant in the suit. Both the applications were opposed by the petitioner/defendant and W.P.C.No.6130/09 - 2 - the court below, after hearing both sides, allowed the applications. P6 and P7 are copies of those orders. Propriety and correctness of P6 and P7 orders are challenged in the Writ Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. By the amendment allowed, character of the suit has changed and it cannot be permitted under law is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The registered document, which is sought to be declared as void, according to the learned counsel, came into existence prior to the agreement of sale and as such, the proposed amendment and also impleadment of the additional defendant was quite outside the scope of the suit. A new set of facts seeking additional relief by way of the proposed amendment was basically wrong as it introduced a new cause of action, and it is not permissible under law, is the submission of the learned counsel. Whether the registered settlement deed is genuine or not may be germane for consideration in examining whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance as sought for in the suit. Settlement deed executed in favour of his son by the petitioner/defendant in the suit was earlier in W.P.C.No.6130/09 - 3 - point of time before the agreement of sale cannot be given unmerited consideration at this stage to hold that document is free from any infirmity. That is a matter to be considered in the trial of the suit. I do not find much force in the submission made by the counsel that by the amendment character of the suit will be changed since the plaintiff has sought for an additional relief. Such amendment was found necessary on the basis of the contentions raised by the defendant in his written statement. No jurisdictional infirmity is found in the orders passed by the court below and as such no interference with the orders is permissible in exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this court. Writ Petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE