Krishnan vs Lekha

Krishnan vs LEKHA

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 20, 2023

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1389717

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1389717
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Jun 20, 2023
Case Number: OP(C)/2219/2018

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Krishnan

Respondent

LEKHA

Excerpt

.....dismissed by the trial court on the ground that there is no consequential amendment sought by the plaintiff. yet another application submitted for amendment was also dismissed by the trial court without assigning any reason. at the fag end of the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that they are intending to file another application for amendment for incorporating a prayer by restoring the earlier relief of declaring the document null and void or in the alternative to set aside the same.4. the impugned order ext.p3 hence willstand set aside for enabling the plaintiff to file a fresh application for amendment for the ends of justice. as discussed earlier, the plaint is drafted very poorly and the blame shall not be placed on the shoulder of the plaintiff. hence for a fair determination of the issue involved in the suit, it is fit and proper to grant an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend the plaint and with that right, the present petition will stand allowed by setting aside ext.p3 order. op(c) will stand allowed accordingly. sd/- p. somarajan judge sm appendix of op(c) 2219/2018 petitioner exhibits exhibit p1 the true copy of the original plaint o.s.no.21 of 2014 filed before the honourable munsiff court, punalur. exhibit p1 the true copy of the amended plaint o.s.no.21 of 2014 dated 08/01/2014 filed before the honourable munsiff court, punalur. exhibit p2 the true copy of the i.a.351 of 2018 in o.s.no.21 of 2014 field before the honourable munsiff court, punalur. exhibit p3 the true copy of the order in i.a.351 of 2018 in o.s.no.21 of 2014 dated 05/07/2018 of the honourable munsiff court, punalur. respondents exhibits : nil //true copy// pa to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945 OP(C) NO. 2219 OF 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTOS 21/2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR PETITIONER/S: 1 KRISHNAN AGED 93 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN, PUTHEN VILA VEEDU, KARUKONE (P.O.), ALAYAMON, PIN - 691 306. 2 SALEELA AGED 1 YEARS D/O.KRISHNAN, PUTHEN VILA VEEDU, KARUKONE (P.O.), ALAYAMON, PIN - 691 306. BY ADVS. SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SRI.DEAGO JOHN K R. MAHESH MENON ACHUTH KYLAS RESPONDENT/S: 1 LEKHA W/O SAIJU, CHITHIRA, PANAYAMKARA, EROOR VILLAGE - 691 312. 2 SAIJU AGED 1 YEARS CHITHIRA, PANAYAM KARA, EROOR VILLAGE - 691 312. BY ADVS. JESSY S.SALIM JESSY S.SALIM A.D.SHAJAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Earlier, a suit was filed for declaring the execution of a sale deed as vitiated by fraud and other grounds.

2. In the suit, the prayer is for declaring the

said document as null and void, instead of setting aside the same, on the ground of alleged vitiating grounds. The plaint was drafted very poorly. Subsequently, an amendment application was submitted by which the earlier prayer for declaring the document as null and void sought to be deleted from the suit, by substituting another prayer for declaration of the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the property, without seeking any relief to set aside the document alleged to have been executed in favour of the defendant.

3. Quite interestingly, an impleadment

application was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that there is no consequential amendment sought by the plaintiff. Yet another application submitted for amendment was also dismissed by the Trial Court without assigning any reason. At the fag end of the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that they are intending to file another application for amendment for incorporating a prayer by restoring the earlier relief of declaring the document null and void or in the alternative to set aside the same.

4. The impugned order Ext.P3 hence will

stand set aside for enabling the plaintiff to file a fresh application for amendment for the ends of justice. As discussed earlier, the plaint is drafted very poorly and the blame shall not be placed on the shoulder of the plaintiff. Hence for a fair determination of the issue involved in the suit, it is fit and proper to grant an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend the plaint and with that right, the present petition will stand allowed by setting aside Ext.P3 order. OP(C) will stand allowed accordingly. Sd/- P. SOMARAJAN JUDGE SM APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2219/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PLAINT O.S.NO.21 OF 2014 FILED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR. EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED PLAINT O.S.NO.21 OF 2014 DATED 08/01/2014 FILED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.351 OF 2018 IN O.S.NO.21 OF 2014 FIELD BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.351 OF 2018 IN O.S.NO.21 OF 2014 DATED 05/07/2018 OF THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Krishnan vs LEKHA Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan