IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3492 of 2011(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/06/2011 IN IA 4722/2010 IN OS.535/2009 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT,NEDUMANGADU .................... PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------ 1. ASLAM, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, AL-MANAR, MANALIMUKKU, VENJARAMOODU, PULLAMPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NAJEEMA, W/O. ASLAM, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------------- NASAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, 'SANAM', VADAKKEL VEEDU, MANALIMUKKU, VENJARAMOODU, PULLAMPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 607. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OPC.NO.3492/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.535/09 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT IN EXT.P1. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN IA NO.4722/2010. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION TO EXT.P3. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.7.6.2011 IN EXT.P3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.3492 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.535 of 2009 of the Court of learned Principal Munsiff, Nedumangad challenging Ext.P5, order allowing amendment of plaint. Respondent filed the suit originally for recovery of possession and declaration of title of one item of property. Petitioners filed written statement denying the claim of respondent over the said item and raising certain other contentions. Respondent filed I.A.No.4722 of 2010 to amend the plaint to incorporate two new items also as plaint B schedule and seeking relief with respect to the said items. That application was resisted by petitioners but, allowed by the learned Munsiff by Ext.P5, order observing that amendment is sought for immediately after petitioners filed written statement and no prejudice is caused to the petitioners by allowing the amendment. 2. Learned counsel submitted that there is vast change to the suit as originally filed and sought to be made into by the proposed amendment and that nature of the suit itself is changed O.P(C).No.3492 of 2011 -: 2 :- by the amendment. 3. Having gone through the copy of plaint and the amendment sought for and allowed, I am not inclined to accept that argument of learned counsel. 4. The amendment is sought based on a claim as per a gift deed No.2600 of 1993 regarding which there is reference in the original plaint itself. In view of the contentions raised by petitioners in the written statement respondent has sought amendment to incorporate plaint B schedule items also and claiming relief with respect to the said items also. I am unable to accept that it changes the nature and character of the suit. I must also bear in mind that the purpose of allowing amendment is to avoid multiplicity of suits and to decide the real controversy between the parties. The right of respondent to file a separate suit claiming reliefs sought for by amendment is not disputed. To avoid multiplicity of suits that relief can be sought for in the present suit as well by appropriate amendment. Since the amendment has been sought for and allowed immediately after petitioners filed written statement no prejudice can also be said to be caused to the petitioners. Whatever defence petitioners have already taken are available to them and it is open to the O.P(C).No.3492 of 2011 -: 3 :- petitioners to raise appropriate contentions with respect to the amended plaint as well. This original petition is dismissed. Sd/- (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-