Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 22ND POUSHA, OP(C) NO. 64 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 5/2021 IN OS 69/2019 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR PETITIONER/5th PETITIONER/5TH DEFENDANT: (RANK OF THE PARTIES IS NOT CORRECTLY SHOWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER) JOSE, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. DEVASSY, THIRUTHANATHI HOUSE, MOOKKANNUR KARA, MOOKKANNUR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PIN - 683 577. BY ADVS. SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH SMT.MEENA.A SRI.K.C.KIRAN SMT.MINI.M.R SRI.M.DEVESH SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH SRI.ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH SRI.THAREEQ ANVER K. RESPONDENTS/5TH RESPONDENT AND PETITIONERS 1 TO 4/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4: (RANK OF THE PARTIES IS NOT CORRECTLY SHOWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER) 1 DAVIS S/O. DEVASSY, CHIRAMMEL HOUSE, THAVALAPPARA KARA, MANJAPRA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PIN - 683 581. 2 LIJO JOSE, S/O. JOSE, EERALY HOUSE, VADAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, MANJAPRA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PIN - 683 502. O.P.(C)No.64 of 2022 ..2.. 3 DHANYA W/O. LIJO JOSE, EERALY HOUSE, VADAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, MANJAPRA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PIN - 683 502. 4 LISSY, W/O. JOSE, THIRUTHANATHI HOUSE, MOOKKANNUR KARA, MOOKKANNUR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PIN - 683 577. 5 VARGHESE S/O. AGUSTHY, CHIRAMMEL HOUSE, THAVALAPPARA KARA, MANJAPRA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PIN - 683 581. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(C)No.64 of 2022 ..3..
A.BADHARUDEEN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C)No.64 of 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of January, 2022
JUDGMENT
Order dated 06.01.2022 in I.A.No.5 of 2021 in
O.S.No.69 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, North Paravur produced as Ext.P4 herein, is under challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Admittedly, amendment application in
I.A.No.5 of 2021 was filed after recording evidence on the side of the plaintiffs. The learned Additional Sub Judge considered the amendment application and dismissed the same after observing that nothing stated in the affidavit in support of the petition to the effect that inspite of due diligence, the defendants could not have raised the matter O.P.(C)No.64 of 2022 ..4.. before the commencement of trial of the suit. This is one of the main reason for dismissal of the amendment petition. Though the learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the amendment proposed is absolutely necessary to defend the case in this regard, the learned counsel failed to substantiate why the mandate of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure not complied with. Going by the affidavit in support of the amendment petition, no whisper regarding compliance of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be gathered. Therefore, the dismissal of the amendment petition filed after completion of the evidence of the plaintiffs by the trial court cannot be faulted at all. In view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order. Accordingly, this original petition is dismissed without being admitted. Sd/- A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE rkj O.P.(C)No.64 of 2022 ..5.. APPENDIX OF OP(C) 64/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.69/2019 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, PARAVUR DATED 25.07.2019. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
DATED 13.01.2020 ALONG WITH THE COUNTER CLAIM IN O.S.69/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE, NORTH PARAVUR. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.5/2021 IN O.S.69/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE, NORTH PARAVUR FILED BY THE PLANTIFF DATED 20.12.2021. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT IN I.A.NO.5/2021 IN O.S.69/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 06.01.2022.