IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 9240 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------------ POP.19/2007 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHEAINE.P., D/O.AYYAPPAN, AGED 43 YEARS, POOKKUTH HOUSE, PERIMBIDARI P.O., MANNARKKAD. BY MR.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. MR.MR.J.R.PREM NAVAZ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. RAVI, S/O.NADUVILEDATH RAMAN, AGED 54 YEARS, KUNDUKAD DESOM, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. AYYAPPAN, POOKKUTH HOUSE, PERIMBIDARI P.O., MANNARKKAD. R1 BY ADVS. MR.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1), MR.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/10/2009, THE COURT ON 06/11/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.9240/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NEW ITEM IN THE MATHRUBHUM DT. 18.4.05. P2:- COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DTD. 18.4.05. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 13.7.05 IN IA. 2058/05 OF THE FAMILY COURT. P4:- COPY OF THE P.O.P. 16/07 OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 13.4.07 IN P.O.P. 16/07 OF THE SUB JUDGE, THRISSUR. P6:- COPY OF THE P.O.P. 19/07 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. P7:- COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT IN P.O.P. 19/07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 5.7.07 IN IA. 1290/07 IN P.O.P. 19/07 OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, THRISSUR. P9:- COPY OF THE IA. 2823/07 OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR FORMERLY IA. 1291 OF THE VACATION COURT. P10:- COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO IA. 2823/07 IN P.O.P. 19/07 OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. P11:- COPY OF THE IA. 5524/07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P12:- COPY OF THE IA. 7054/07 IN P.O.P. 19/07 OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF THRISSUR. P13:- COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO IA. 7054/07. P14:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18.2.07 IN IA. 7054/07 IN P.O.P. 19/07 OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, THRISSUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a):- COPY OF THE SALE DEED 1153/2005. R1(b):- COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY KOMALAM TO THE RESPONDENT DTD. 25.12.08. R1(c):- COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY NUMBERED AS 112/05 OF THE WADAKKANCHERY SUB REGISTRY. R1(d):- COPY OF THE SALE DEED REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.1592/2005 OF PAZHAYANNOOR SUB REGISTRY. W.P.(C) NO.9240/2008 R1(e):- COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER WADAKKANCHERY SRO TO THE RESPONDENT. R1(f):- COPY OF THE CANCELLATION DEED 119/2005 OF WADAKKANCHERY SRO. R1(g):-(1):- COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DTD. 24.1.08. R1(g)(2):- COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAIL DTD. 24.1.08. R1(g)(3):- COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN DEEPIKA DTD. 24.1.08. R1(h):- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR DTD. 20.1.09. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9240 of 2008 - Y --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To set aside Ext.P14 order (order dated 18.02.2007 in I.A.No.7054/2007 in P.O.P.No.19/2007 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Thrissur). ii) To declare that P.O.P.No.19/07 of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Thrissur is not maintainable in law.” 2. Petitioner is the first respondent in P.O.P.No.19 of 2007 of the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur filed by the first respondent. Second respondent in the above P.O.P is the second respondent in the writ petition as well. 3. The first respondent filed the petition to sue as an indigent person for declaration that a registered deed involving the suit properties executed on the basis of a power of attorney obtained from him by fraudulent means, is null and void, and for other reliefs, including injunction, mesne profits etc. Pending enquiry over that P.O.P. he moved an application for carrying out some amendments in the petition, which was objected to by the W.P.(C).No.9240 of 2008 - Y 2 present petitioner by filing objections. The learned Sub Judge after hearing both sides allowed the amendment application vide Ext.P14 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. Petitioner claims to be the wife of the first respondent. She imputes that the first respondent is a cheat, fraud and a criminal involved in several theft cases who had duped her into a marriage without informing of his previous marriages. He had three marriages at the time when he married her, is her case. However, the first respondent disputing the status of the petitioner as his wife alleges that she had cheated him of valuable properties, after obtaining a power of attorney by way of fraudulent means. Whatever be the case canvassed by the rival parties, the solitary question emerging for consideration in the writ petition is the correctness of Ext.P14 order passed by the court below allowing amendment application moved by the first respondent to amend his P.O.P. filed to sue as an indigent W.P.(C).No.9240 of 2008 - Y 3 person. By the proposed amendment various admissions made earlier are withdrawn and an entirely new case is advanced in the petition, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Previously the first respondent has moved another indigent OP and that was abandoned by him and so much so, the present petition itself is not maintainable, submits the counsel for the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, proposed amendment sought for and permitted by the court below under the impugned order relate to allegations made in the petition filed to sue as in indigent person to institute a suit as such and so much so, no prejudice or injury is caused to the respondents in that petition, is the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent. Challenges against the permission sought for by the first respondent to sue as an indigent person can be raised by the petitioner before the court below and such questions cannot be gone into and examined with reference to the materials by this Court in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction, especially, when the writ petition is confined to an order passed on an amendment application in a proceeding as to whether first respondent can be W.P.(C).No.9240 of 2008 - Y 4 permitted to sue as an indigent person. Perusing Ext.P14 order, it is seen, that the learned Sub Judge after scrutiny of the petition was of the view that the amendment sought for by the first respondent was essential for determination of the real disputes between the parties. Since the petition is filed to sue as an indigent, it cannot be stated that any prejudice or injury has been caused to the petitioner even if some admissions made earlier are sought to be withdrawn by such amendment. Petitioner has sufficient opportunity to raise her challenges even in respect of the amendment of the OP at a later stage, if a suit is entertained whether or not permission is granted to the first respondent to sue as an indigent person. So much so, I do not find any impropriety of illegality in Ext.P14 order passed by the court below. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-