IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 11585 of 2009(D) -------------------------- OS.288/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- L.C.CHANDRALEKHA,MOONLIGHT, CHEMBUMUKKU, KAKKANAD WEST P.O. KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE SRI.V.AJITH KUMAR SMT.M.S.SHAMLA SMT.SHERINA MEERAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ANIRUDHAN,AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.ABEOOUK R.,CHANDRASEKHARAN, KUZHIKKANATHU VEEDU,MANIDEEP, S.N.NAGAR TRIVANDRUM. 2. VALSAL RAMACHANDRAN,AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN, KUZHIKKANATHU VEEDU, CHANDRA GIRI,THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O.NEAR VISHNATHU KAVU TEMPLE,KOLLAM. 3. RANICHANDRA,AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN,W/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN, KUZHIKKANATHU VEEDU, CHANDRA GIRI, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O. NEAR VISHNATHU KAVU TEMPLE, KOLLAM. 4. DR.RAMESHAN,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN, KUZHIKKANATHU VEEDU, CHANDRA GIRI, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O. NEAR VISHNATHU KAVU TEMPLE,KOLLAM. 5. C.SREEJYNARMS/O.ANEPPIL R.CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 54 YEARS, KUZHIKKANATHU VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA SOUTH, KAVANAD P.O. KOLLAM-3. 6. C.RAJENDRAN,S/O.ANEPPIL R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, KUZHIKKANATHU VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA SOUTH, KAVANAD P.O. KOLLAM-3. ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 5364 OF 2009 TPC NO. 61 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.11585 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S 288/08 pending on the file of the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally. The respondents are the defendants in that suit. In the written statement filed by the defendants a counter claim has been raised and later, they moved an application to amend the written statement to incorporate further details to substantiate the counter claim. Objections were filed by the plaintiff. The learned Munsiff allowed the amendment application overruling the objections of the plaintiff. Ext.P3 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P3 order is challenged in this petition invoking the W.P.(C).No.11585 OF 2009 2 supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Whatever be the merit of the objections canvassed by the plaintiff to oppose the application for amendment, I find that it has not been considered or adverted to by the learned Munsiff while allowing the amendment under Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 order simply states “ Petition allowed carry out the amendment within seven days ”. Such an order shows nonapplication of mind over the objections raised by the plaintiff opposing the application. Ext.P3 order cannot be sustained. Setting aside Ext.P3 order I direct the learned Munsiff to consider the matter afresh and dispose the application for amendment moved by the defendants in the light of the objections raised by the W.P.(C).No.11585 OF 2009 3 plaintiff and in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv