IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18834 of 2008(P) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 374/2008 IN OS.46/2008 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER: ------------ ASLAM.H.M, AGED 50, S/O. HABIB MOHAMMED, MADANVILAKATHU VEEDU, THUNDILKADA, NEAR KSRT BUS STAND, KILIMANOOR, PAZHAYAKUNNUMEL VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- MOHAMMED BASHEER MOULAVI, AGED 55, S/O. ABDUL RAZAK, KOPPATHIL SHABEER MANZIL, KAITHODU MURI, NILAMEL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18834 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th June, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the first defendant and respondent the plaintiff in O.S.No.46 of 2008, on the file of the Sub Court, Attingal. The suit was filed against the petitioner and Subair, second defendant, for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from alienating the plaint schedule property contending that as per the agreement for sale, property was put into the possession of the plaintiff. In the plaint itself, it was alleged that defendants are trying to alienate the property to the third party, in collision with each other. Subsequently, petitioner filed an application and got impleaded third defendant by filing an application under Rule 10(2) of Order I of Code of Civil Procedure. Consequent to that impleading, respondents filed Ext.P4 petition, under Rule 17 of Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint, which was opposed by the respondent under Ext.P5. The learned Sub Judge under Ext.P6 order allowed the petition W.P.(C) No.18834/2008 2 which is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that the very nature of the suit is allowed to be changed by amending the plaint, and such an amendment should not have been allowed. The learned counsel further argued that suit as it originally stood is one for injunction restraining two defendants from alienating the property, and by the amendment allowed, it is now converted into a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale and such an amendment should not have been allowed. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference, in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The amendment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of the suit, as well as to resolve the dispute between the parties. In such circumstances, petition is dismissed. Defendants are entitled to W.P.(C) No.18834/2008 3 file additional written statements raising all contentions which are available to them. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.