IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 10134 of 2009(O) -------------------------- O.S.417/2007 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ADDL.11TH DEFENDANT ---------------------------------- VIPIN SIMON, AGED 36, S/O.LATE P.M.SIMON, PALAKAPPILLI, KOPARAMBU LANE, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 1 TO 10 --------------------------------------------- 1. AMMINI, D/O.LATE CHACKO @ JACOB, AGED 53 PALAKAPPILLI HOUSE, PERUMANOOR DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. MARIAKUTTY, W/O.LATE MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 80, PALAKAPPILLI, KOCHANATTU PARAMBIL, PERUMANOOR P.O., KOCHI-15. 3. KURIEN, S/O.MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 53, AGED ABOUT 80, PALAKAPPILLI, KOCHANATTU PARAMBIL. PERUMANOOR P.O., KOCHI-15. 4. AMMINI, D/O.MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 64, PALAKAPPILLI, KOCHANATTU PARAMBIL, PERUMANOOR P.O., KOCHI-15. 5. MERCY, D/O.MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 59, PALAKAPPILLI, KOCHANATTU PARAMBIL, PERUMANOOR P.O., KOCHI-15. 6. BABY, D/O.LATE MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 56, PALAKAPPILLI, KOCHANATTU PARAMBIL, PERUMANOOR P.O., KOCHI-15. WPC 10134/09 7. KOCHUTHRESSIA, D/O.LATE MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 40, PALAKAPPILLI, KOCHANATTU PARAMBIL, PERUMANOOR P.O., KOCHI-15. 8. JOSEPH @ MATHACHAN, S/O.LATE SIMON, AGED ABOUT 30, PALAKAPPILLI, KOPPARAMBU LANE, KADAVANTHARA, NEAR ST.JOSEPH U.P.SCHOOL, KOCHI-20. 9. GIPIN SIMON, S/O.LATE SIMON, AGED ABOUT 30, PALAKAPPILLI, KOPPARAMBU LANE, KADAVANTHARA, NEAR ST.JOSEPH U.P.SCHOOL, KOCHI-20. 10. NIMIL SIMON, S/O.LATE SIMON, AGED ABOUT 21, PALAKAPPILLI, KOPPARAMBU LANE, KADAVANTHARA, NEAR ST.JOSEPH U.P.SCHOOL, KOCHI-20. 11. JOSEPH SIMON, S/O.LATE SIMON, AGED ABOUT 19, PALAKAPPILLI, KOPPARAMBU LANE, KADAVANTHARA, NEAR ST.JOSEPH U.P.SCHOOL, KOCHI-20. ADV. SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN FOR R1 SRI.T.T.HARIKUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.10134 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 22nd May, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: 1.Call for the records pertaining to Exhibit P2 and quash the order therein by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction. 2. Grant such other further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Petitioner is the 11th defendant in O.S.No.417/07 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. His grievance is that an amendment application moved by the plaintiff without showing him as a respondent and also without hearing him was disposed by the learned Munsiff allowing that application. Suit was originally filed for the reliefs of fixation of boundary and injunction. Pursuant to the filing of the commission report the plaintiff moved for amendment of the plaint to have an additional relief for recovery of possession. The 11th defendant, the petitioner in the Writ Petition, originally, was not made a defendant in the suit. He got himself impleaded in the suit moving an application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. The case of the W.P.C.No.10134/09 - 2 - plaintiff, first respondent, to have the reliefs claimed in the suit is that the predecessor of the defendants had only right over three cents of property as kudikidappu. The defendants in the suit are the legal heirs of the kudikidappukaran, namely, Mathew. By inadvertence the 11th defendant, one of the sons of a predeceased son of kudikidappukaran was omitted to be brought in as a defendant in the suit. His mother and other brotheren, according to the counsel, are defendants in the suit. The amendment allowed by the court has not caused any prejudice to the 11th defendant and, in fact, there was substantial representation by the other defendants in the suit when that application was heard and disposed by the learned Munsiff is the submission of the learned counsel. After hearing the counsel on both sides and having regard to the facts and circumstances presented, I find that the amendment which was allowed by the learned Munsiff is unlikely to cause any injury to the 11th defendant as he has sufficient opportunity to present additional written statement on the basis of the amendment brought in the plaint. In the nature of the disputes involved and the report filed by the Commissioner, the amendment brought in by the plaintiff may be essential for adjudicating the issues involved in the suit. In that view of the matter, I find that W.P.C.No.10134/09 - 3 - there is no merit in the Writ Petition. It is submitted that the case now stands posted for filing of additional written statement in view of the amendment carried out in the plaint. The 11th defendant shall be given an opportunity to file his additional written statement and the court below shall receive if any such additional written statement is filed within two weeks from the date of this judgment. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Communicate a copy of this judgment to the court below. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE