IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2007 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1929 WP(C).No. 36119 of 2005(Y) -------------------------- OS.28/1998 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SHAKTIVEL, S/O.LATE MUTHUSWAMY KOUNDER, RVP PUDUR, ERUTHEMPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SMT.AYSHA RAHMAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. LOKANAYAKI, D/O.MYLATHAL, W/O.VELLIYANGIRI, ERUTHEMPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT NO.12, CHELLAKUMARA GOUNDER, VISTHARIPPIL, VADUKAPALAYAM, POLLACHI TALUK. 2. SHAKTIVEL, S/O.MYLATHAL, RESIDING AT MARAPPA GOUNDAN PUDUR, PERIYAPOTH, POLLACHI TALUK, COIMBATORE DISTRICT. 3. PAKYAM, W/O.DAIVASIKHAMANI, RESIDING AT GANAPATHIPALAYAM, DIVANSA PUDUR VILLAGE, POLLACHI TALUK. 4. MURUKESHAN, S/O.DAIVASIKAMONY, GANAPATHYPALAYAM, DIVANSAPUDUR VILLAGE, POLLACHI TALUK. 5. ANANDAN, S/O.DAIVASIKAMONY, RESIDING AT GANAPATHIPALAYAM, DIVANSA PUDUR VILLAGE, POLLACHI TALUK. 6. KANDIYAMMAL @ ANNAMAL, D/O.LATE MUTHUSWAMY KOUNDER, RESIDING AT MANGAMPALLAM, RVP PUDUR, ERUTHEMPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 7. MARAPPAN, S/O.MUTHUSWAMI KOUNDER, RESIDING AT MANGAM PALLAM, RVP PUDUR, ERUTHEMPETTI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY ( R3 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO. 36119/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER;S EXHIBITS': EXT.P1: COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S. MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR DATED 13.1.1998 EXT.P2(A): COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY IN O.S. 28/98 MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR DATED 28.5.1998 EXT.P2(B): COPY OF THE WRITTENS TATEMENT FILED IN O.S. 28/98 MUNSIFF COURT CHITTUR,D ATED 1.6.1999 EXT.P3: COPYOF COMMISSIOENR REPORT IN O.S. 28/98 MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR,D ATED 23.6.1998 EXT.P4: COPYOF JUDGMENT IN O.S. 28/98 MUNSIFF COURT CHITTUR DATED 31.1.2000 EXT.P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN A.S. 136/2000 DIST. JUDGE PALAKKAD DATED 5.10.2004. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FIELD BY R1 IN O.S. NO. 28/98 MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR DATED 26.11.05 EXT.P7: COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT IN I.A. 2549/05 IN O.S. NO. 28/98 MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR FIELD BY R2 DATED 3.12.2005 EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A, 2549/05 IN O.S. NO. 28/98 MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR DATED 8.12.2005 EXT.P9: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14.2.1972 EXT.P10: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 1181/98 DATED 2.11.1998 PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 36119 of 2005 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June 2007 JUDGMENT This writ petition under Article 227 is remaining defective for want of service on certain respondents who were co defendants along with the respondents who have entered appearance. In the circumstances of this case, appearance of those respondents is dispensed with. 2. Heard both sides. I find that Ext.P8 order of the learned Munsiff allowing the amendment of the plaint is under challenge. Under Ext.P8 the learned Munsiff allowed the application submitted by the plaintiff for amendment so as to incorporate description of the plaint schedule property. I am at a loss to understand how amendment will alter the nature of the suit and as to how the same will cause prejudice to the defendants. It must certainly be noticed that there was considerable delay in the matter of filing the amendment application. The amendment application was made by the first respondent/plaintiff after remand and that too after several chances had been given by the WPC No. 36119/2005 2 court for adducing evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this was 2nd amendment application in succession. Considering the above submission, I feel that the learned Munsiff was not justified in allowing the application without imposing terms. Since there is no warrant for correcting Ext.P8 except to the above extent the writ petition will stand disposed of modifying Ext.P8 in the following terms: The first respondent will pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to be apportioned between the defendants who filed objections in the matter of the amendment application within two weeks of the petitioner producing a copy of this judgment before the court below. If the payment is made by the plaintiff as directed above, Ext.P8 will stand confirmed. If no payment is made, the amendment application itself will stand dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk WPC No. 36119/2005 3