AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 401 wordsJustice V. Chitambaresh
The order of the court below to the extent to which an application for amendment of the plaint has been rejected is impugned in this original petition. The southern boundary of the plaint schedule property was originally shown as property belonging to the defendant in the suit for injunction. The petitioner/plaintiff wanted to correct the misdescription by stating that the property on the southern boundary belongs to one Mr. Jyothi Prakash. The extent or the survey number or the other three boundaries are not altered by the amendment proposed. Only the misdescription as regards the southern boundary of the plaint schedule property is sought to be changed. The petitioner has specifically pleaded in the application for impleading that the defendant and Jyothi Prakash were residing together earlier. This was the reason as to why the property on the southern boundary was said to belong to the defendant in the plaint originally.
The respondent/defendant vehemently contended that the amendment proposed militates against the oral testimony of the petitioner in the suit. Whether the reliefs in the suit could be granted on the basis of the amendment is altogether a different question. That does not affect the power of the court to allow amendment of the plaint of this nature. The affidavit accompanying the application for amendment satisfies the condition under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC also.
3 I am satisfied that the petitioner did not know the title holder of the property on the southern boundary notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence earlier. There is of course some latches on the part of the petitioner in not taking steps earlier. Such delay can be condoned by directing the petitioner to pay costs to the respondent. I.A. No. 3786/2010 in O.S. No. 185/2009 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Irinjalakuda is allowed. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as costs to the Counsel for the respondent within a period of three weeks. The order impugned will remain intact in case the costs as directed above is not paid. The respondent is undoubtedly entitled to file an additional written statement to the amended plaint. The court below shall also make an endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
The Original Petition (Civil) is disposed of.