IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 619 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.225/2009 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAFIYA MOIDEEN, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.MOIDEEN, KARUKAPPADATHU, CHETTIPARAMBU DESOM, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMAR SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- LALITHA, D/O.MANITHARAMADATHIL RAJAN, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.619 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in O.S No.225 of 2009. Suit is one for recovery of money on the basis of a cheque, and the respondent is the plaintiff. An application moved by the respondent/plaintiff to carry out corrections in the plaint as to the place where the cheque was executed was allowed by the court vide Ext.P7 order overruling the objections raised by the petitioner/defendant. Ext.P5 is the copy of the application for amendment and Ext.P6 the objections filed by the petitioner/defendant. Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P7 order invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the plaint, the respondent/plaintiff has alleged that the cheque was executed at the residence of the defendant. However, later, it was sought to be corrected as having been W.P.(C).No.619 OF 2010 Page numbers executed at the residence of the plaintiff. A criminal proceeding was also initiated when the cheque was dishonoured on presentation and the plaintiff examined as witness in that case had deposed that the cheque was executed and handed over at the house of the defendant, is the submission of the learned counsel. Despite producing a copy of the deposition statement of the plaintiff, the complainant in the criminal case, the court below allowed Ext.P5 application is the challenge raised by the learned counsel to impeach the correctness of Ext.P7 order. The court below has not decided the crucial question involved whether the cheque had been executed by the petitioner/defendant which seems to be the main thrust of the defence mooted to resist the suit claim. Whatever defence available to the petitioner/defendant can be canvassed in trial of the suit. Allowing of the amendment sought for by the plaintiff as to the correction regarding the place where the cheque was executed is unlikely to cause any prejudice to the defendant. In the criminal proceedings W.P.(C).No.619 OF 2010 Page numbers if the complainant had given evidence that the cheque was executed at a different place that could also be brought in evidence confronting the plaintiff when he is examined in the case. In the given facts of the case, I find, no interference with Ext.P7 order is called for in exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this court. The writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv