IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 OP(C).No. 1154 of 2011(O) -------------------------------- OS.6/2008 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER --------------- P.JAGADEESAN NAIR,S/O.PARAMESHWARAN NAIR R/AT SABARI,MURIYANKARA DESOM, PARASSALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- L.NALINA KUMARI,R/AT SREEVILASOM, PARASSALA DESOM , DO. VILLAGE - 695 018. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- OP(C) No.1154 of 2011 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March 2011 Judgment Aggrieved by Ext.P8 order passed by the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara on two interlocutory applications in OS No.6/08, i.e., IA No.439/11 for re-opening the evidence and to examine additional witness and IA No.440/11 for amending the plaint, the defendant in the suit has filed this Original Petition. 2. It appears that the suit is one for money. The copy of the plaint is marked as Ext.P1. It appears that on 10.02.2011, PW1 to PW3 were examined from the side of the plaintiffs and the defendant was examined as DW1. Evidence was closed on that day and the case was listed for hearing to 23.02.2011. In the meanwhile, the respondent herein filed two interlocutory applications i.e., IA Nos.439/11 and 440/11 in OS No.6/08 on 21.02.2011. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner pointing OP(C) 1154/11 2 out that the petitions are highly belated and cannot be allowed and it is only an attempt to fill up the lacuna in the evidence and pleadings. 3. The court below considered the applications and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is justified in seeking amendment of the plaint and in seeking to re-open the evidence. It was also found that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents by allowing those applications since there was no change in the character or nature of the suit. 4. The petitioner pointed out that the amendment application was filed after closing the evidence and if allowed, it will change the nature and character of the suit. The court below observed that it is only a bona fide omission on the part of the respondent and the amendment of the plaint and the re-opening of the evidence will not prejudice the petitioner. The court below has chosen to exercise its discretion in a particular manner. No grounds are made out to interfere with the findings of OP(C) 1154/11 3 the lower appellate court. This OP is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta OP(C) 1154/11 4