IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2583 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.125/2007 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------- HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD., P.B.NO.502, BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-682 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-LEGAL M.V.H.MENON. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON, SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. K.JAGADEESCHANDRAN NAIR, NO.37/2547, KOMAROOTH LANE, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COCHIN-682 017. 2. GOURI AMMA PARUKUTTY AMMA, NO.37/2547, KOMAROOTH LANE, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COCHIN-682 017. 3. E.K. MANOMOHAN PANDARATHIL, SON OF KIRIYARU ESSANARU PANDARATHIL, EDAVANA MADOM, PERISSERI MURI, PULIYOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR TALUK-689 510. Kss ..2/- ..2.... OPC.NO.2583/2011 O 4. DEVIDASAN PANDARATHIL, SON OF KIRIYARU ESSANARU PANDARATHIL, EDAVANA MADOM, PERISSERI MURI, PULIYOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR TALUK-689 510. 5. CHANDRIKADEVI ANTHARJANAM, DAUGHTER OF KIRIYARU ESSANARU PANDARATHIL, NEERANJANAM, P.O. ASHTAMUDI, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN-691 602. 6. NARAYANARU PANDARATHIL, SON OF E.K.GIRISWARU PANDARATHIL, EDAVANA MADOM, PANNIVIZHA, ADOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 001. 7. KRISHNA PILLAI, CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, KUNJUMANGALASSERIL VEEDU, PAIPPADU MURI, THRIKKODITHANAM VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY TALUK. PIN-686 105. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OPC.NO.2583/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT DTD. 30/07/2007 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA AS O.S.NO.125/07. P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD. 15/02/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P1 PLAINT. P3: COPY OF THE LEASE DEED NO.2822 OF PATHANAMTHITTA SUB REGISTRY DTD. 30/06/1911 EXECUTED BY KIRIYARU KIRIYARU PANDARATHIL IN FAVOUR OF CHARLES BRANDER OF RUBBER PLANTATION INVESTMENT TRUST LIMITED. P4: COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION DTD. 19TH OCTOBER,2009 FILED AS I.A.NO.1500 OF 2009 IN O.S.NO.125/07 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2. P5: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD. 6TH APRIL 2010 IN I.A.NO.1500 OF 2009 IN O.S.NO.125/07 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 4TH JULY 2011 I.A.JO.1500 OF 2009 IN O.S.NO. 125/07 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.2583 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the sixth defendant in O.S.No.125 of 2007 of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta challenging Ext.P6, order dated July 04, 2011 allowing amendment of the plaint on I.A.No.1500 of 2009. That is a suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 for a decree for prohibitory injunction restraining petitioner and others from transferring or assigning or parting with any portion of the suit property or committing waste therein and to declare and demarcate by means and bounds the ¾ part of the suit property over which respondents 1 and 2 claimed right of kanapattom to the 7th respondent. Petitioner/ 6th defendant filed written statement contending that it is a cultivating tenant entitled to fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, "the Act”). While so, respondents 1 and 2 filed Ext.P4, application (I.A.No.1500 of 2009) for amendment of plaint to incorporate a statement in the plaint that the suit property was forest area having thick growth of various species of trees of spontaneous growth and undergrowth at the time of lease. Petitioner preferred Ext.P5, objection contending that attempt of O.P(C).No.2583 of 2011 -: 2 :- respondent is to bring the property within the ambit of Sec.3 of the Act. Ext.P6 is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that in paragraph 2 of the plaint there is a categoric statement made by respondents 1 and 2 that the lease was of land for planting rubber trees or converting it into a rubber plantation but, at the time of lease it would appear that the land was not being put to profitable cultivation. Learned counsel contended that in the light of the above statement the plea sought to be incorporated by amendment cannot be allowed. 3. If according to the petitioner, the land in question was a lease land as per document relied upon by it and the said land is exempted from the provisions of the Act, that is a different matter. What is requested is amendment of the plaint. There was no attempt made by respondents 1 and 2 to delete any statement in paragraph 2 of the plaint which according to the petitioner favoured its case. The amendment is only to add that property is forest area having thick growth of various species of trees of spontaneous growth and undergrowth at the time of lease. I am not inclined to think that the amendment affected or altered the nature of the suit or was not permissible. As such, I do not find O.P(C).No.2583 of 2011 -: 3 :- reason to interfere in the matter. Without prejudice to other rights of petitioner in the matter this original petition is dismissed. Sd/- (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-