IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 10667 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 693/2005 IN OS.148/1988 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABU K.THOMAS, KARINGOZHAKAL HOUSE, KOOMPARA P.O.,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PRESENTLY,ADVOCATE,C.C.44/56, S.R.M.ROAD,COCHIN-18. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KALLADA IRRIGATION PROJECT, RIGHT BANK CIRCLE,PULAMON P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. GOVT.PLEADER FOR RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC 10667/09) PETITIONER'S EXTS.: EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.148/88, SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANTS IN O.S.NO.148/88, SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLICATION/WRITTEN STATEMENT TO COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.8.93 IN I.A.NO.113/92 IN O.S.NO.148/88, SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF I.A.NO.693/05 IN O.S.NO.148/88, SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF OBJECTION TO EXHIBIT P5. EXT.P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 26.2.2009 PASSED IN I.A.NO.693/05 IN O.S.NO.148/88, SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.10667 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 20th October, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.148 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. P1 is the copy of the plaint in the above suit. Plaintiff, who had taken a contract work under the defendants, filed the above suit seeking a declaration that the order of termination of the contract at his risk and cost passed by the 2nd defendant is illegal and void, and for allowing of various claims of money on different counts in respect of the work from the defendants. Petitioner had sought for filing the suit as an indigent person, as IOP No.28 of 1986 on 28.8.1986, and subsequently that application being allowed, the suit was numbered as above in 1988. The defendants resisting the suit claim, filed a written statement setting forth a counter claim for recovery of Rs.30,83,628/- from the petitioner/plaintiff. P2 is the copy of the written statement. A replication thereto was filed by the plaintiff, and it is exhibited as P3. P3 replication was filed by the plaintiff on 20.6.1990. Pursuant to an application filed by the plaintiff to produce some documents and to W.P.C.No.10667/09 - 2 - answer some interrogatories and the orders thereof challenged before this court in revisions, the trial of the case was delayed, and later, after tracing out some documents which were misplaced, petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint. That amendment application, copy of which is produced as P5, filed on 2.4.2005, was objected to by the defendants by filing objections. P6 is the copy of the objections. The learned Sub Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed P5 amendment application vide P7 order. Propriety and correctness of P7 order is challenged in the Writ Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Proposed amendment canvassed under P5 amendment application is essential for a fair and proposal disposal of the suit on merits, is the submission of the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. Perusing P7 impugned order dismissing the amendment application with reference to the exhibits tendered and also the facts and circumstances presented, I find there is no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the court below dismissing the amendment application. Suit filed as early in 1986 seeking permission to file an indigent person by the plaintiff still W.P.C.No.10667/09 - 3 - continues to be in the file of the court after two decades and more. Proposed amendment advancing a case that it could be raised only after tracing out some documents which are stated to have been misplaced, but, later, traced out, deserve to be noticed only for its rejection. P5 amendment application, prima facie, indicate that by seeking the amendment, petitioner/plaintiff wanted to substitute the plaint presented earlier for the claims raised thereunder in respect of which he had been granted permission to sue as an indigent person, advancing an entirely new case withdrawing the specific admissions made earlier, and even changing the character of the suit. Under the proposed amendment covering 42 pages the petitioner wanted to substitute almost the entire allegations raised in the previous plaint and the relief of declaration as sought against the defendants earlier that the termination of the contract was null and void was sought to be modified with further declaratory reliefs. I find no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Sub Judge that there is no bonafides in the filing of the petition for amendment by the plaintiff and evidently, the petition has been filed only to delay and protract the disposal of the suit on merits. Writ Petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed, directing the court below to dispose the suit as W.P.C.No.10667/09 - 4 - expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the judgment. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE