IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 33460 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.364/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SASIDHARAN, PROPRIETOR, SON OF T.K.G.PILLAI, SILPA SALES TRADING CORPORATION, NEAR ALTHARAMOODM MATTOM NORTH, MAVELIKKARA. 2. K.P.GIRIJAKUMARI, PROPRIETOR, W/O. R. SASIDHARAN, CANDYSONS FOODS & COMPANY, NEAR ALTHARAMOOD, MATTOM NORTH, MAVELIKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MAIN BRANCH MAVELIKKARA. 2. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MAIN BRANCH MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV.MR.SATHISH NINAN ADV.MR.SANTHOSH MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.33460 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 20th November, 2009 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.364 of 2006 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Mavelikkara against the dismissal of some applications filed by them in the suit. Suit is one for compensation and at the stage when the suit came up in the list for trial, petitioners moved an application for impleadment of two more defendants, another for amendment of the plaint and the third one for removal of the case from the list. All those applications were dismissed by the learned Munsiff. Propriety and correctness of those orders were challenged in the writ petition. 2. Notice given, the respondents have entered appearance. I heard learned counsel on both sides. 3. Plaintiffs prosecuted the suit as party in person and previously an application for amendment of the plaint moved by them was returned to cure defects, but, it could not be represented within time is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. A fresh petition was therefore filed for amendment of the plaint and another for impleadment of two more persons as additional defendants as their presence was found necessary for a fair and proper disposal of the suit. Learned Munsiff dismissed the applications W.P.C.No.33460/09 - 2 - for the reason that the case has been already included in the special list for trial. The applications were not considered on merits is further submission of the counsel. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that entire evidence in the case is over and the case is posted for judgment tomorrow. It is further submitted by the counsel that the previous application for amendment was dismissed as not pressed, and it was not a case of returning for curing of the defects. Endorsement made in P1, copy of the previous amendment application indicating that it was not pressed. is relied by the counsel to substantiate his submission. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel and considering the facts and circumstances presented, I find no impropriety or illegality in the orders passed by the learned Munsiff declining the amendment application and also the petition for impleadment of additional defendants in the suit. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is closed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE