IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19350 of 2006(C) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.436/2006 IN OA.379/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- COCHIN TENNIS TRUST, REGISTERED UNDER THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN LITERARY SCIENTIFC AND CHARITABLE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1955, MASS BUILDING, COCHIN-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, R. JAYASANKAR. BY ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER SRI.SIVARAM SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ST.ALBERTS COLLEGE, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER FR.CLEMENT VALLUVASERY, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. LATE VAKKACHAN PALLY. 2. FR.CLEMENT VALLUVASSERY, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.LATE VAKKACHAN PALLY, MANAGER, ST.ALBERTS COLLEGE, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. KERALA FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION, MATHER SQUARE, OPPOSITE TOWN RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.P.GEORGE WILLIAM FOR R1,R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.19350/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE 2ND ADDL.MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM IN I.A.NO.919 OF 2004 IN O.S.NO.379 OF 2004. EXT.P2: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CONTEMPT CASE © NO.13241 OF 2004 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.P3: COPY OF I.A.NO.3311 OF 2005 IN C.M.A.NO.19 OF 2004 OF THE HNOURABLE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), ERNAKULAM. EXT.P4: COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.NO.3311 OF 2005 IN -DO- -DO- EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER RECORDIG SETTLEMENT IN I.A.NO.3311 OF 2005 IN -DO- EXT.P6: COPY OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.436/06 IN O.S.NO.379/04 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PLEADING. EXT.P7: COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN -DO -DO- EXT.P8: COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS AND 3RD RESPONDENT I -DO- -DO- EXT.P9: COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.436/2006 IN O.S.NO.379 FO 2004 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.19350 OF 2006 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against an order passed by the court below declining the request made by the petitioner/plaintiff to amend the plaint to seek an additional relief for compensation over and above the relief of perpetual prohibitory injunction sought for in the suit. At the time of hearing, the counsel on both sides submitted that the above suit is now being jointly tried with another suit instituted by a different party. A similar relief is being canvassed in the connected suit as well, in which, an amendment application moved on similar lines, after being turned down by the court, was challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition as W.P.(C).No.19248 of 2006. This Court disposed of the writ petition holding that the character of the suit will change by the proposed amendment, and so much so, no interference with the order declining the request for amendment was WPC.19350/06 2 called for. In the light of the judgment rendered in the writ petition referred to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that there is no scope for further pursuing the challenge canvassed against the dismissal of his amendment application in the present writ petition. However, the learned counsel urged that the dismissal of the amendment application should not interdict him from pursuing whatever remedies available under law to claim compensation or such other relief as against the defendants. Needless to point out, if the petitioner/plaintiff has any legal right on different cause of action to pursue any other remedy against the defendants, he can do so, and for which, no permission need be granted by this Court. Reserving the right of the petitioner to pursue whatever remedies available to him under law, but, holding that no interference with the order passed by the court below challenged in the writ petition is warranted, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp