IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 6407 of 2008(S) ------------------------- OP.569/2002 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ---------------------- NOORJAHAN, D/O. MYTHEEN KHAN, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT JAHANGEER MANZIL, ALAMCODE VILLAGE, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SMT.K.KUSUMAM RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- SHAJAHAN, S/O. ABDUL RAHIM, THODIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KAYALVARAM, KADAKKAVOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SRI.MOOLAYAM S.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6407 of 2008(S) A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PLAINT OP 569/02 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER CLAIM IN OP NO.569/02 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF 1ST AMENDMENT PETITION DATED 18/5/2007 IN OP 569/02 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF 2ND AMENDMENT PETITION AS IA NO.3105/2007 IN EXT.P1 CASE. EXT.P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER TO EXT.P4 AMENDMENT PETITION. EXT.P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 07/12/2007 IN I.A.NO.3105/2007 IN OP NO.569/02, OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. \\TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C).No.6407 of 2008-S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T J U D G M E N T RAMAN, J. What is impugned in this writ petition is Ext.P6, an order passed by the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. By Ext.P6 order, an amendment sought for in a pending O.P was allowed by the court below. 2. We have heard both sides. 3. The respondent herein filed I.A.No.3105/2007 seeking for amendment of the main matter which is said to be a matter pertaining to partition. According to him, an item was omitted to be included and hence, the amendment was sought. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner herein however contended that the matter was earlier settled between the parties and hence, the amendment itself is contrary to the terms of the settlement. At this stage of the proceedings, we are not entering a finding on the merits of the case. Since this is only an interim order permitting the amendment, the writ petitioner can raise all her contentions after final order is passed. With the above liberty this writ petition is closed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms