IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 4 of 2008 ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/08/2007 IN IA 9439/2006. IN OS.1329/2005 OF II ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM ............................... REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST PETITIONER IN IA/1ST DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELSY JOSEPH, W/O LATE JOSEPH, POOVANKERIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN SRI.P.T.GIRIJAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT IN IA/PLAINTIFFS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LILLYKUTTY JOHN, W/O V.T.JOHN, PLACKAMANNIL HOUSE, KALATHIPADY DESOM, VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, VADAVATHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. M/S S.L. VENTURES, S.L.PLAZA BUILDINGS, PALARIVATTAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, RAJAN.C.THOMAS, S/O C.O.THOMAS, NO.E, 'ROHINI APARTMENTS', MEENACHIRA ROAD, ELAMAKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAMD DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NO. 3/2ND PETITIONER IN I.A./2ND DEFENDANT: 3. JOSEPH GEORGE, S/O JOSEPH, POOVANKERIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTAM, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.RP NO. 4/2008 ORDER ON IA NO. 12/2008 IN C.R.P NO. 4/2008 DISMISSED 02/01/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. True copy tga M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 4 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Ernakulam in I.A.9439/06 in O.S.1329/05. By virtue of the amendment application the defendants wanted o delete two statements made by them and incorporate additional pleadings as described in paragraphs 5 A, 5 B and 5 C. The Court below allowed the prayer with respect to the additional pleadings but it did not allow the defendants to delete the admissions which were sought to be deleted by virtue of the amendment. I cannot find fault with the learned Munsiff for disallowing that prayer but at the same time it is always possible in law to explain the circumstances under which a statement was made in the pleadings. Or in other words, there must be always an opportunity to explain away CRP NO. 4 of 2008 -:2:- the admissions made by the party. So reserving the right of defendants to explain away the admissions which is made in the written statement, the C.R.P. is disposed of. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-