IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2740 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.534/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ A. ZEENATH, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. S.SHAFI MUSALIAR, RESIDING AT SHAFI MANZIL, T.K.M. COLLEGE.P.O, KARIKKODE, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS, SMT.P.K.PRIYA, SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN, SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. A. LAILA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. HASHIM, RESIDING AT SALMA, VEMBAYAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 615. 2. A. SAFIA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. ANZARI LABBA, RESIDING AT KAMALIYA MANZIL, KANIYAPURAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 3. A. SABEENA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. AZAD, RESIDING AT AZAD GARDEN, ASHOKAPURAM.P.O, ALWAYE - 683 101. 4. A. SALEENA, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.T.J. FAIZAL, RESIDING AT ARAFA, GANDHINAGAR HOUSING COLONY, AMALAGIRI.P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686 036. 5. SIRAJUDEEN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. KASIMPILK, RESIDING AT VALEL VADAKKATHIL, THAJ MANSION, KANNAMPALLI BHAGOM MURI, KEERIKADU VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM PO- 690 502. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OPC.NO.2740/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.534/2006 ON THE FILES OF COURT OF PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE, KOLLAM. P2: COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KOLLAM SUB COURT IN O.S.534/2006. P3: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4. P4: COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE JFCM, KARUNAGAPPALLY. P5: COPY OF THE I.A.1785/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4. P6: COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED RELIED UPON BY THE PETITIONER. P7: COPY OF COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.1785/2011 IN O.S.534/2006. P8: COPY OF THE ORDER I.A.1785 IN O.S.534/2006 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE, KOLLAM DTD. 30/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.2740 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.534 of 2006 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge. Kollam. That is a suit for injunction against respondents causing obstruction to the petitioner entering the suit property or managing partnership business along with respondents 1 to 5. Petitioner claimed that she is a co-owner of the suit property along with respondents 1 to 4. Respondents 1 to 4 filed joint written statement (Ext.P3) contending that on the death of their father, a partnership firm was formed for convenient running of the business. They contended that items 1 to 4 in schedule 3 were sold. It is also contended that there was a sale deed executed by petitioner in favour of the 5th respondent whereby the 1/5th share of petitioner was assigned to the 5th respondent and that petitioner retired from the said partnership. Respondents 1 to 4 filed O.S.No.497 of 2006 against petitioner for partition and separate possession of co- ownership property (according to respondents 1 to 4). While so, respondents 1 to 4 filed Ext.P5, application (I.A.No.1785 of 2011) for amendment of the written statement to incorporate a plea that the copy of partnership deed produced by petitioner is not the original or the real one and that the said document produced is a forged one. Based on that plea they also wanted to incorporate certain additional contentions. That was opposed by the petitioner contending that if the amendment is allowed that would amount to withdrawal of certain OP(C) No.2740/2011 2 admissions in the written statement. Rejecting that objection learned Sub Judge allowed I.A.No.1785 of 2011 (Ext.P5) by Ext.P8, order dated June 30, 2011. That order is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the effect of allowing amendment is withdrawal of certain admissions made in the written statement. But, I must bear in mind that by Ext.P5, application no portion of the contention already raised in the written statement is sought to be substituted by any new plea. On the other hand, additional contentions are sought to be incorporated in the written statement that partnership deed produced by the petitioner is a forged document. Having heard learned counsel and gone through Exts.P5 and P8, I find myself unable to find any attempt to withdraw whatever contention which has already been made in the written statement. As such no interference is required with Ext.P8, order. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks