IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 880 of 2011 --------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.(C).NO.2740/2011 DATED 18/08/2011] .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- A.ZEENATH,AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.S.SHAFI MUSALIAR,RESIDING AT SHAFI MANZIL, T.K.M COLLEGE P.O,KARIKODE, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS, SMT.P.K.PRIYA, SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. A LAILA,AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.HASHIM,RESIDING AT SALMA,VEMBAYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 615. 2. A SAFIA,AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.ANZARI LABBA,RESIDING AT KAMALIYA MANZIL, KANIYAPURAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 004. 3. A SABEENA,AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.AZAD,RESIDING AT AZAD GARDEN,ASHOKAPURAM P.O, ALWAYE, PIN- 683 101. 4. A SALEENA,AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.T.J.FAIZAL,RESIDING AT ARAFA,GANDHINAGAR HOUSING COLONY,AMALAGIRI P.O,KOTTAYAM, PIN- 686 036. 5. SIRAJUDHEEN,AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O.KASIMPILK,RESIDING AT VALEL VADAKKATHIL, THAJ MANSION,KANNAMPALLI BHAGOM MURI, KEERIKADU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM P.O, PIN - 690 502. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.NO.880/2011: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:- ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK DTD. 22/08/2011. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.No.880 of 2011 in O.P.(C) No.2740 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011. ORDER This petition is for review of judgment dated 18.08.2011 in O.P.No.2740 of 2011. Petitioner filed that petition in challenge of Ext.P8, order (in the Original Petition) allowing amendment of written statement filed by respondents 1 to 4 in the Original Petition. This Court after hearing learned counsel for petitioner held that there is no reason to interfere with the order allowing amendment of written statement and consequently, dismissed the Original Petition. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that in the nature of amendment made to the written statement, petitioner is entitled to file a replication answering the amended written statement and petitioner may be permitted to file replication. 3. Any pleadings subsequent to the written statement except in answer to a counter, claim or set off can be made only with the leave of the court concerned, under Order VIII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence if petitioner requires to file any replication in answer to the amended written statement, petitioner has to request the learned Sub Judge for permission to do so. It is not for this Court to decide that question at the first instance. If any such request is made learned Sub Judge has to consider that RPNo.880/2011 in OP(C)No.2740/2011 2 request after hearing both sides and pass appropriate orders. There is no reason to review the judgment dated 18.08.2011. Resultantly with the observation made above, this review petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks