IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23964 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/07/2010 IN IA.NO.1623/2006 IN AS.253/2005 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SURENDRAN,S/O.KUNJI,CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,CHETTIYARKONAM,KADAKKAL MURI,KADAKKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A SMT.P.A.SHEEJA RESPONDENT: --------------- RAVEENDRAN,S/O.RAGHAVAN, DWARAKA,PATTIVALU,KADAKKAL MURI, KADAKKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, PIN 691 506, KOTTARAKKARA P.O. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.23964 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 03rd day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Respondent obtained a decree against petitioner for eviction and rent arrears. Petitioner challenged that judgment and decree in A.S.No.253 of 2005 in the court of learned Sub Judge, Kottarakara. While that appeal was pending petitioner thought that he must supplement contentions already raised in the written statement and accordingly filed I.A.No.1623 of 2006 for amendment. In Ext.P2, application for amendment it is stated that it is when petitioner got a copy of the rent deed allegedly executed between the parties that he learned about certain further facts which ought to have been incorporated in the written statement. Learned Sub Judge thought that request for amendment cannot be allowed, upheld objection raised by respondent and dismissed the application vide Ext.P4, order. On going through copy of the written statement it would appear that whatever that is sought to be incorporated in the amendment has been stated in the written statement. Application for amendment came at a time when the appeal was about to be heard. Learned Sub Judge was not satsified that circumstances justified allowing W.P.C.No.23964 of 2010 : 2 : amendment. Discretion has been exercised in favour of rejecting the application. I do not find reason to interfere. But I make it clear that in case decision in the appeal went against petitioner it will be open to him to challenge correctness of Ext.P4, order in the further proceedings that petitioner may initiate. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-