IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 25551 of 2007(P) -------------------------- OS.203/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT,ALUVA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SANTHA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O SURENDRAN, MANGALAM PANDY HOUSE, THURAVANKARA KARA, VEDAKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN SRI.M.V.JOY RESPONDENTS: ------------- DR.SHINE, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O GANGADHARAN, PAKEKKUDY NIRMAIYAM HOUSE, KANJOOR KARA, VADAKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.25551/07 PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.No.203/05 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ALUVA. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT PETITION I.A.No.2646/07 IN O.S.No. 203/05. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.No.2646/07 IN O.S.No.203/05 DT.21.6.07. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 1997 (2) kLT PAGE 371. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 25551 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Aluva in IA 2646/06 in OS 203/05. The petitioner/defendant has filed a written statement and has sought to amend the written statement. It is necessary to understand the pleadings to find out whether there is any bonafide in filing this amendment application and whether the said prayer can be allowed as prayed for by the defendant. In the original the written statement at Para 3 it is specifically averred by the defendant that as directed by the plaintiff a revenue stamp was affixed in blank paper and it was signed and handed over to the plaintiff. After elaborating other things, it is again reiterated as 2. Now by the proposed amendment, the petitioner/defendant wanted to change the entire pleadings on that WPC NO 25551/07 2 behalf and wanted to amend the written statement and substitute the pleadings to the effect that as the plaintiff was having a blank signed paper with him he had created a promissory note with the aid of seeing that signature and asserts that the signature was falsely affixed by the plaintiff and the suit has been instituted. It is the clear categoric crystal admission in the original written statement that the defendant had entrusted a blank paper with a revenue stamp on which the petitioner had put her signature. Further in Para 4 of the written statement it is specifically averred that the said paper has been used for creating a promissory note. Now with the proposed amendment the defendant wants to totally change the character of the written statement itself and wants to incorporate the new pleading of a forgery of the signature in the promissory note. If this amendment is allowed, it will be verbally substituting the original written statement and the candid admission made in the original written statement regarding the signature is attempted to be done away with. It is the cardinal principle that when the courts are considering the application for amendment, the bonafide has to be taken into consideration. The Apex court as well as this court has held that in allowing the amendment applications the court shall be WPC NO 25551/07 3 liberal but there is an equal caution that it should not be totally against the original pleadings that exists. 3. Therefore, I do not find any error committed by the learned Munsiff in disallowing the prayer for amendment of the written statement. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed . M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 25551/07 4