IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24044 of 2008(K) -------------------------- OS.1508/2006 of I ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ V.SUSHEELA, 70 YEARS, D/O.VANAJAKSHY, SUBHAS BHAVAN TC.43/490(1) MUTTATHARA VALLAKKADAVU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- M.MANOJ, 37 YEARS S/O.MADHAVAN, R/AT.DWARAKA BEHIND KANNIMERA MARKET, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN FOR R1 SMT.LIGEY ANTONY FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24044 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent in defendant in O.S.No.1508 of 2006, on the file of Additional Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram. The suit is one for injunction. Petitioner filed I.A.No.202 of 2008, an application under Rule 17 of Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint. Under Ext.P6 order, the petition was dismissed. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P6 order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondent were heard. 3. Under Ext.P6 order, learned Munsiff dismissed the application for amendment holding that by the amendment, the nature of the suit will be altered, as plaint B and C schedule properties are being included and the suit is being converted to one for declaration of right of easement. W.P.(C) No.24044 of 2008 2 4. On hearing learned counsel on both sides and going through Ext.P1 plaint, Ext.P4 application for amendment and Ext.P6 order, it is clear that learned Munsiff should have allowed the application for amendment. The real dispute between the parties can be settled without compelling the parties to institute another suit. In such circumstances, when the suit for injunction is converted to one for declaration of right, it is advantageous for all the parties, as it would avoid multiplicity of suits. 5. In such circumstances, Ext.P6 order is quashed. Ext.P4 petition is allowed. Respondents are permitted to file additional written statement taking up all the contentions available to them. The writ petition is allowed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.