IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 298 of 2010(O) ------------------------ IA NO.48/2009 IN OS.213/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR .................... PETITIONER (S)/PETITIONER IN IA/DEFENDANT IN OS: -------------------- VASUDEVAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT ANJANAMCHIRAKALAM, MUTHALAMADA, ANAMARI, KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT IN IA/PLAINTIFF IN OS: --------------- CHANDRAN, S/O.PAZHANIMALA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNNATHUKADU HOUSE, MANAPPADAM, PUTHUCODE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.298 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT Defendant in O.S.No.213 of 1998 of the court of learned Munsiff, Alathur is the petitioner before me challenging the order dated 18.02.2010 on I.A.No.48 of 2009 allowing an application for amendment of the plaint schedule consequent to the alleged sale of a portion of suit property by the respondent/plaintiff. Initially respondent sued for a decree for prohibitory injunction in respect of 54 ½ cents over which he claimed title and possession as per document No.749 of 1995. During the pendency of suit he filed I.A.No.48 of 2009 for amendment of plaint claiming that he had sold 20 cents out of the suit property and accordingly extent of plaint schedule has to be amended excluding the portion sold. Simultaneously he also wanted amendment regarding northern and western boundary of the suit property consequent to the sale. So far as western boundary is concerned, respondent wanted to state that the property on the west of the suit property belonged to petitioner and two others. That application was objected by petitioner vide Ext.P5, counter claiming that if amendment is allowed it would alter the nature and character of the suit. Petitioner denied the allegation that the suit property belonged to the respondent and that a portion of the property belonging to him was sold as claimed. Learned Munsiff allowed OP(C) No.298/2010 2 I.A.No.48 of 2009 as per order dated 18.02.2010. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel states that amendment ought not to have been allowed since it changed the nature and character of the suit. 2. I have been taken through Ext.P4, application for amendment, Ext.P5, counter and the order passed by the learned Munsiff. Amendment sought for is consequent to the case of respondent/plaintiff that he assigned a portion of the suit property during pendency of the suit. I am unable to find that the amendment in any way altered nature and character of the suit. I do not find merit in the contention advanced against the impugned order. 3. It is pointed out by learned counsel that records do not reveal that pursuant to the amendment of plaint petitioner was given an opportunity to file additional written statement. I make it clear that if no opportunity was given to the petitioner pursuant to the amendment of plaint to file additional written statement, learned Munsiff shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to file additional written statement. This petition is dismissed with the above direction. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks