IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 6990 of 2007(F) ---------------------------------- OS.8/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- MAMMEN MATHEW, THE EDITOR, MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY, KOTTAYAM-686 001. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. DR. THOMAS ISSAC, S/O.T.P.MATHEW, AGED 51 YEARS, MLA, A K G CENTER, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. S. SUDHEESH, AGED 53 YEARS, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, S.N.COLLEGE, KOLLAM-691 001 AND RESIDING AT `GAYA', PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM-691 021. MR. S. SUDHEESH IS MADE A PARTY ONE AS IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND THE OTHER AS THE EDITOR-IN-CHARGE OF “PATHOM” MAGAZINE AS PER ORDER DATED 13/3/2008 IN IA 695/08. 3. M.N. VIJAYAN, AGED AROUND 65 YEARS, EDITOR, “PADHOM” MAGAZINE, `GAYA', PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM-691 021. 4. P.V CHANDRAN, MANAGING EDITOR, MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN FOR R2 SRI.M.R.SASITH FOR R2 SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN FOR R4 SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C NO. 6990/2007 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS : EXT - P1 : TRUE COPY OF PLAINT DATED 19-12-2003 FILED PLAINTIFF BEFORE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT ERNAKULAM IN OS NO. 8/2004. EXT - P2 : TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 01-09-2004 FILED BY 3RD DEFENDANT IN OS NO. 8/2004 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT - P3 : TURE COPY OF AMENDMENT PETITION DATED 17-10-2005 FILED BY PLAINTIFF IN OS NO. 8/2004 BEFORE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT - P4 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 04-08-2006 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM, IN IA NO. 5023/2005 IN OS NO. 8/2004. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE RHS M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6990 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th May, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the 3rd defendant in O.S.No.8/2004, on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. First respondent instituted the suit for damages against four defendants, including the petitioner. Petitioner is the editor of Malayala Manorama newspaper. After framing issues on 8.6.2005, suit was originally included in the special list. At that time, first respondent filed I.A.No.5023/2005 under Rule 17 of Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint, incorporating additional paragraphs in the plaint, to the effect that defendants 2 to 4 being the editor/managing editor of the respective magazine/newspaper, they are responsible for selection and publication of the above explained articles in their respective magazine/newspaper, and they have published the defamatory news item with a shared intention to defame the reputation of the plaintiff in the mind of the general public, and, therefore, they are officially and personally responsible for the offending publication. Petition was opposed by the respondent. Under Ext.P4 order, petition was allowed W.P.(C) No.6990/2007 2 on terms holding that though petition was belated, it is necessary to determine the real questions in controversy. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India contending that in the written statement filed by the petitioner on 1.9.2004, it was specifically pleaded that petitioner is not personally responsible for the selection and training of the news items of the daily, and daily has appointed separate editors for each editions, and there are no specific pleadings to the effect that disputed news items published in the news paper and edited by the petitioner were defamatory or that petitioner has any ill-will or malice towards first respondent. The argument of the learned counsel is that without considering the defence taken in the written statement, learned Sub Judge allowed the belated application for amendment incorporating a plea that including the petitioner, being editors had shared an intention to defame the reputation of first respondent in the mind of the general public. 2. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P3 order warranting interference in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While allowing an application for amendment, correctness of the amendment sought to be introduced need not be W.P.(C) No.6990/2007 3 decided. The question is whether the amendment sought for is necessary and would prejudice the petitioner. The argument of the learned senior counsel is that if the amendment is allowed to stand, petitioner will loose the right to plead that the claim is barred by limitation. If that is the grievance, petitioner is entitled to take a defence in the additional written statement taking up all the defence, including the plea of limitation. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.