IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 8389 of 2007(W) ------------------------- OS.464/1994 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- JOSE JOSEPH, MANAGING PARTNER, UNIVERSAL RUBBERS, CHERPUNGAL P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- ABRAHAM P.J., S/O.JOSEPH, PAMPADIYIL HOUSE, AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DT. ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE (SR.) FOR R1 SRI.TOM JOSE (PADINJAREKARA) FOR R1 SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO FOR R1 SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 8389 OF 2007-W ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th December, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard counsel on both sides. The amendment sought for vide Ext.P4 application was to incorporate a sentence after the second sentence and before the third sentence in paragraph 3 of the plaint to the effect that “the entire transactions were in the name of Pampadiyil Agencies but the cheques were issued by him in the account of Pampadiyil Tyres.” It was objected to by the respondent contending that thread rubber was never purchased by him from the petitioner/plaintiff and he had no connection at all with Pampadiyil Agencies and that the amendment sought for after 14 years of institution of the suit if allowed will change the nature of the case. It is seen that the case is one which was decreed twice and the decree was being set aside on the application of the respondent/defendant on both those occasions. It is consequent on cheque having been issued by the respondent/defendant as Proprietor of Pampadiyil Tyres and effecting purchase of thread rubber in the name of Pampadiyil Agencies that has necessitated the WPC 8389/2007 2 amendment of the plaint is the submission of the plaintiff's counsel. The correctness or otherwise of the case so set up is a matter for the petitioner/plaintiff to establish and the defendant who has purchased thread rubber from the plaintiff's firm obtaining bill/purchase invoice for the same in the name of Pampadiyil Agencies but issuing cheque thereof signing therein as Proprietor of Pampadiyil Tyres that has necessitated the amendment and contentions resisting amendment in the circumstances are devoid of merit and has only to be repelled. Ext.P6 order passed by the court below dismissing Ext.P4 application therefore deserves to be set aside. In the result I set aside the impugned order Ext.P6 and allow the amendment as prayed for in Ext.P4 application, allowing this writ petition. K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE jj