IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3086 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------ OS.100/2004 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA -------------------------------------- PETITIONER (S) : ------------------------ C.N.CHANDRAMATHY, W/O. SREEDHARAN, AJITH NIVAS, KULATHUPUZHA P.O., KULATHUPPUZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI. B.MOHANLAL SRI. SAIJU S. SRI. T.PRASAD RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------------ 1. RAJI MOL, D/O. SAROJINI, KODIVILA VEEDU, KUMARAM KARIKKATHIL, KULATHUPUZHA MURI, KARIKKAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN- 691 310. 2. SREEDHARAN, S/O. KURUMBAN, AJITH NIVAS, KULATHUPPUZHA MURI, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN- 691 310. 3. AMBILI, D/O. C.N.CHANDRAMATHY, AJITH NIVAS, KULATHUPPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 310. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING : NS O.P.C. NO. 3086/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT ON 3.11.04 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE I.A. NO.1921/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.S. NO.100/2004 DTD.7.4.2011 OF THE SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE NS THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.3086 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 18th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Notice has been served on counsel appearing for respondents but there is no response. 2. Second defendant in O.S.No.100 of 2004 of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Kottarakkara is the petitioner before me aggrieved by Ext.P4, order. That is a suit filed by the first respondent for specific performance of an agreement for sale regarding the 48 cents belonging to the petitioner and her husband, the second respondent jointly as per document No.2485 of 1983. In answer to the plaint, it is said that petitioner along with her husband (second respondent) filed Ext.P1, written statement on 03.11.2004 through Adv.Sri.N. Sukumaran Potti. Later, petitioner filed Ext.P2, application dated 11.12.2008 to accept “additional written statement” (Ext.P3) dated 11.12.2008 taking up totally inconsistent contentions from the one taken in Ext.P1, written statement. In Ext.P2, application petitioner claimed that she had not instructed anybody to file Ext.P1, written statement. Learned Munsiff allowed Ext.P2, application and thus, Ext.P3, additional written statement was taken on file. Petitioner was examined as witness No.1 where she denied giving O.P(C).No.3086 of 2011 -: 2 :- Ext.P1, written statement but stated that she does not remember whether she filed Ext.P3, additional written statement and pleaded ignorance about the signature appearing therein. Learned Sub Judge, based on that evidence of petitioner passed Ext.P4, order striking off Ext.P3, additional written statement. That order is under challenge. 3. Learned counsel submits that under Rule 9 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure petitioner is entitled to file additional written statement with the leave of Court and leave in this case has been granted by the learned Sub Judge on Ext.P2, application. Learned counsel asserted that petitioner had not given Ext.P1, written statement along with the husband, second respondent. 4. In the light of the evidence which petitioner has given as witness No.1, I do not consider it necessary for this Court to interfere with Ext.P4, order at this stage. I make it clear that in case an appeal is preferred from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.100 of 2004, it is open to the petitioner to challenge correctness of Ext,P4, order in such appeal as provided under law. Without prejudice to that right of petitioner, this original petition is closed. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-