IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1726 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.1099/2007 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SRIDHAR, S/O.NANU, MANIMANGALAM, VELAPPAYA VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- BINDU, W/O.KOCHATH VALSAN AND D/O.PUTHUKULANGARA SANKARANKUTTY, POTTOOR VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.1726 OF 2010 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1099 of 2007 on the file of the IInd Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. The above suit is one for money based on a promissory note. Previously, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging an order passed by the court below declining his request for amendment of the plaint to carry out a correction as regards the date of the promissory note and also the place of its execution, which were wrongly stated in the plaint. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed by Ext.P1 judgment reversing the order of the learned Sub Judge declining the amendment sought for. It is submitted that the petitioner could not carry out the amendment despite that being allowed by this Court within the posting date fixed by the court. When the petitioner sought for an extension to carry out the amendment in the plaint, the learned Sub Judge declined such permission by Ext.P3 order holding that time for WPC.1726/10 2 carrying out amendment had been fixed by this Court, and so much so, no further extension could be granted. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P3 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and hence, it is dispensed with. Ext.P1 judgment passed by this Court in the previous writ petition disclose that no time limit was fixed by this Court for carrying out the amendment. So much so, the court below was not correct in holding that there was fixation of time limit by this Court to carry out the amendment. Ext.P3 order is set aside and the court below is directed to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to carry out the amendment in the plaint, if it is so requested for within two weeks from the date of this judgment. Writ petition is accordingly disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp