IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20302 of 2008(P) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 754/07 IN OS.274/2002 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT., KOCHI .................... PETITIONER: ------------ DINESHAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.NATARAJAN, RESIDING AT C.C.10/1024, (NEW NO.25/1192), AMARAVATHY, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682001. BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.KATHIRVELU, RESIDING AT C.C.NO.10/1023, (NEW NO.25/1191), AMARAVATHY, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682001. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20302 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Defendant in O.S.No.274 of 2002, on the file of Munsiff Court, Kochi, is the petitioner. Plaintiff is the respondent. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the Munsiff granting permission to amend the plaint as sought for in I.A.No.754 of 2007. Respondent had earlier filed I.A.No.981/2006, an application for amendment of the plaint incorporating additional particulars, based on the report submitted by the Commissioner. Challenging the order passed by learned Munsiff allowing the application, petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.4729/2007. That writ petition was dismissed under Ext.P6 judgment. I.A.No.754/2007 was filed thereafter. Learned Munsiff under Ext.P9 order allowed the application and permitted petitioner to file an additional written statement and raise whatever contentions available to him. Petition was allowed on payment of cost of Rs.1500/=. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P9 order. W.P.(C) No.20302/2008 2 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that when earlier writ petition was heard, respondent represented to the Court that he will not seek any further amendment, and subsequent application filed is in violation of that submission, and therefore, it should not have been allowed. The learned counsel further argued that as per the amendment sought for, the very nature of the suit has been changed and when only a portion of the property on the northern side was sought to be recovered earlier, now recovery is sought on all other sides alleging violation of building rules, and the plea is barred by limitation, and learned Munsiff did not consider the same. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through Ext.P9 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in the impugned order, in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The plea of limitation is available to the petitioner to be raised in the additional written statement. The amendment sought for in the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground that plea is barred, as that is a W.P.(C) No.20302/2008 3 question to be decided in the suit. Ext.P6 judgment does not show any undertaking as canvassed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, petition is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to file an additional written statement raising all the contentions available, including the plea on limitation. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.