IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9484 of 2008(D) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 814/2007 IN OS.16/2005 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. K.P.SAMBASIVAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHAN, PLAMPARAMPIL HOUSE, NADUVILE MURI, NEDUMPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SARADA SAMBASIVAN, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.K.P.SAMBASIVAN, PLAMPARAMPIL HOUSE, NADUVILE MURI, NEDUMPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. N.SUKUMARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, RAVUR HOUSE, THOTTAPPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.B.BALRAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, EXCISE RANGE, THIRUVALLA. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA TALUK,THIRUVALLA. 6. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) THIRUVALLA TALUK, THIRUVALLA. Kss ..2/- ...2..... WPC.NO.9484/2008 D 7. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA. 8. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHENCHERRY. 9. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MANIPPUZHA BRANCH, PODIYADI P.O. NEDUMPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN, SC, SBT SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 9484 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred challenging the order of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvalla in I.A.814/07 in O.S.16/05. This is a plaint whereby the plaintiff is seeking damages against the Government and further does not want to pay crores of amount due from him. Innumerable number of allegations are made and ultimately now an amendment is sought contending that one Pradeep Kumar had been booked by the Anti Corruption Department and therefore the plaintiff wants to incorporate the amendment including the same to establish the harassment meted out to the plaintiff at the hands of the excise officials. 2. A perusal of the plaint would reveal that there are large number of averments regarding the same. There is no necessity to incorporate any specific amendment like this and the civil Court is not competent to go into the correctness or W.P.C 9484 OF 2008 -:2:- otherwise of the corruption charge against a person, but it can be a piece of evidence for the purpose of showing that there has been harassment meted out to the plaintiff, if it is properly established. The Court below was right in holding that the amendment is not necessary and it need not be allowed. Therefore I decline jurisdiction and this writ petition is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-