IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23608 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.140/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JOSEPH, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.POULOSE, POTTAKKARAN HOUSE, KUTTIKKAD DESOM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, SMT.P.A.ANITHA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- MOHANAN, AGED 47 YEARS,S/O.KANNAPPAN, PUDHUPPILLY HOUSE, KUTTIKKAD DESOM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK - PIN-680 721. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23608 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ This Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P3 order allowing amendment of the plaint. Respondent/plaintiff sued for declaration of right of way through plaint ‘C’ schedule for access to the plaint ‘A’ schedule and other reliefs. Petitioner resisted the suit on various grounds. Learned Munsiff started recording evidence in the case and after evidence was over, parties were submitted argument notes. Then learned Munsiff removed the case from the list. Thereafter respondents filed I.A.No.936/2010 for amendment of the plaint. That application was opposed by petitioner contending that amendment is meant to delete an admission made by the respondent. Learned Munsiff rejected the objection and allowed the application. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant has contended that court below has not observed proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘ the Code’). W.P.(C) No.23608/2010 2 2. The amendment prayed for is only to the extent that in paragraph 5 of the plaint respondent wanted to state that the document which is with the respondent and given to him is produced (along with the plaint), instead of the statement already made in the plaint that “copy of document with the respondent the original of which is with the petitioner” is being produced (along with the plaint). No other change is attempted to be brought in. Learned Munsiff has observed that it is an inadvertent mistake in paragraph 5 of the plaint which is sought to be corrected by amendment. I am not persuaded to think that amendment in any way affected the case on merit or, was intended to delete any admission made by the respondent. It was well within the power of court to have allowed the amendment. 3. Then the next question is whether proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code was required to be complied as learned counsel contends. One thing has to be noted that though evidence was recorded earlier, learned Munsiff removed the case from the list and it is thereafter that application for W.P.(C) No.23608/2010 3 amendment was preferred. An occasion to seek amendment of pleadings might arise, some times after the evidence is recorded or, when a party is in the box and he is questioned about his pleadings. It may not always be that a party goes through his pleadings and goes into the box. Such and similar contingencies can arise. Here, what is corrected by amendment does not in any way relate to the merit of the contentions raised. As learned Munsiff observed, it is only an inadvertent mistake as to from whose custody the original of the document in question was produced (along with the plaint). I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Writ Petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) ps