Reghunath Vs. Mohammed Abudl Razack - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1136863
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnApr-02-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
AppellantReghunath
RespondentMohammed Abudl Razack
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice v.chitambaresh wednesday, the2d day of april201412th chaithra, 1936 op(c).no. 2069 of 2013 (o) --------------------------- against the order/judgment in os71994 of sub court,manjeri petitioner: -------------------------- reghunath, s/o.krishna panicker, aged47years "varuna", mundaparamba post, malappuram-676 509 by advs.sri.p.b.krishnan smt.geetha p.menon sri.n.ajith sri.p.m.neelakandan sri.p.b.subramanian respondent(s): ---------------------------- 1. mohammed abdulrazack s/o.narukottil konnadan muhammed moulavi thuvvur post, malappuram - 679 327.2. sulaikha d/o.narukottil konnadan muhammed moulavi cherambu karuvarakundu post, malappuram - 676 523.3. aboobacker sidheeq s/o.narukottil konnadan muhammed moulavi ponginichi kallur, vythiri, wayanad - 673 576.4. khadeeja kalpetta amsom and desom, vythiri taluk wayanad - 673576 5. muhammed cherambu karuvarakundu post, malappuram - 676 523. op(c).no. 2069 of 2013 (o) --------------------------- -2- 6. abdul salam cherambu karuvarakundu post, malappuram - 676 523.7. abdul majeed cherambu, karuvarakundu post, malappuram - 676 523.8. chatholi pathumma w/o.mohammed moulavi, cherambu, karuvarakundu post malappuram - 676 523.9. anappattath nafeesa umma w/o.mohammed moulavi, thuvvur post malappuram - 679327 10. priyadarsini d/o.cherukattu kunjikkavu amma, keezhmuri post munduparamba, malappuram - 676 509.11. rajashree d/o priyadarsini, keezhmuri, post munduparamba malappuram - 676 509.12. muhammed s/o.pottengal moithi, thandukod, vallayuar thuvvur post, malappuram - 679327. r1,r2 by adv. sri.r.rajesh kormath r3-r5 &6-r9 by adv. sri.v.v.surendran r3-r5 & 6-r9 by adv. sri.p.a.harish this op (civil) having come up for admission on0204-2014, the court on the same day delivered the following: op(c).no. 2069 of 2013 (o) --------------------------- appendix petitioner(s)' exhibits ------------------------------------- ext.p1 - true copy of the application i.a.no.460 of2013in o.s.no.7 of1994 sub court,manjeri dated182-2013 ext.p2 - true copy of the application i.a.no.460 of2013in o.s.no.7 of1994 sub court,manjeri dated192-2013. ext.p3 - true copy of the objection to i.a.no.460 of2013in o.s.no.7 of1994 sub court,manjeri dated222-2013 ext.p4 - true copy of the application, i.a.nos.460 and489of2013in o.s.no.7 of1994 sub court,manjeri dated282-2013 respondent(s)' exhibits --------------------------------------- nil true copy p.a to judge smm v.chitambaresh,j.= = = = = = = = = = = o.p.(c) no.2069 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = dated this the 2nd day of april, 2014 judgment the suit as originally filed was one for partition between the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 7 and for recovery of the share of the plaintiffs from defendants 8 to 11. the plaintiffs later filed an application for amendment of the plaint deleting the prayer for partition and pursuing the relief for recovery of possession against defendants 8 to 11. the plaintiffs have however asserted that the property belongs to them and defendants 1 to 7 in co- ownership and have sought a decree for injunction against defendants 8 to 11.2. i should immediately note that the suit is of the year 1994 and the original pleadings were completed long before the code of civil procedure (amendment act), 2002. therefore the embargo under the proviso to order vi rule 17 of the code of civil procedure does not apply in the instant case. the mere fact that the evidence in the suit has already commenced does not disable the court below from allowing the application for amendment. o.p.(c) no.2069 of 2013 2 3. the purpose of the amendment is only to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of suits. the prayer for recovery of possession of the share of the plaintiffs from defendants 8 to 11 already existed in the original plaint. it has only be clarified by way of amendment that recovery of possession is sought from defendants 8 to 11 as co-owners of the property. i do not feel that the nature of the suit is altogether altered or that the petitioner/tenth defendant is in anyway prejudiced . added to this is the fact that the defendants 8 to 11 have already filed an additional written statement to the amended plaint.4. there is no error of jurisdiction in the order impugned warranting interference in this supervisory jurisdiction. the original petition is disposed of. v.chitambaresh judge smm
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE2D DAY OF APRIL201412TH CHAITHRA, 1936 OP(C).No. 2069 of 2013 (O) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

/JUDGMENT

IN OS71994 of SUB COURT,MANJERI PETITIONER: -------------------------- REGHUNATH, S/O.KRISHNA PANICKER, AGED47YEARS "VARUNA", MUNDAPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM-676 509 BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.N.AJITH SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. MOHAMMED ABDULRAZACK S/O.NARUKOTTIL KONNADAN MUHAMMED MOULAVI THUVVUR POST, MALAPPURAM - 679 327.

2. SULAIKHA D/O.NARUKOTTIL KONNADAN MUHAMMED MOULAVI CHERAMBU KARUVARAKUNDU POST, MALAPPURAM - 676 523.

3. ABOOBACKER SIDHEEQ S/O.NARUKOTTIL KONNADAN MUHAMMED MOULAVI PONGINICHI KALLUR, VYTHIRI, WAYANAD - 673 576.

4. KHADEEJA KALPETTA AMSOM AND DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK WAYANAD - 673576 5. MUHAMMED CHERAMBU KARUVARAKUNDU POST, MALAPPURAM - 676 523. OP(C).No. 2069 of 2013 (O) --------------------------- -2- 6. ABDUL SALAM CHERAMBU KARUVARAKUNDU POST, MALAPPURAM - 676 523.

7. ABDUL MAJEED CHERAMBU, KARUVARAKUNDU POST, MALAPPURAM - 676 523.

8. CHATHOLI PATHUMMA W/O.MOHAMMED MOULAVI, CHERAMBU, KARUVARAKUNDU POST MALAPPURAM - 676 523.

9. ANAPPATTATH NAFEESA UMMA W/O.MOHAMMED MOULAVI, THUVVUR POST MALAPPURAM - 679327 10. PRIYADARSINI D/O.CHERUKATTU KUNJIKKAVU AMMA, KEEZHMURI POST MUNDUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM - 676 509.

11. RAJASHREE D/O PRIYADARSINI, KEEZHMURI, POST MUNDUPARAMBA MALAPPURAM - 676 509.

12. MUHAMMED S/O.POTTENGAL MOITHI, THANDUKOD, VALLAYUAR THUVVUR POST, MALAPPURAM - 679327. R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH R3-R5 &6-R9 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN R3-R5 & 6-R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.HARISH THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0204-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 2069 of 2013 (O) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.460 OF2013IN O.S.NO.7 OF1994 SUB COURT,MANJERI DATED182-2013 EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.460 OF2013IN O.S.NO.7 OF1994 SUB COURT,MANJERI DATED192-2013. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO I.A.NO.460 OF2013IN O.S.NO.7 OF1994 SUB COURT,MANJERI DATED222-2013 EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION, I.A.NOS.460 AND489OF2013IN O.S.NO.7 OF1994 SUB COURT,MANJERI DATED282-2013 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE SMM V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

= = = = = = = = = = = O.P.(C) No.2069 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2014

JUDGMENT

The suit as originally filed was one for partition between the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 7 and for recovery of the share of the plaintiffs from defendants 8 to 11. The plaintiffs later filed an application for amendment of the plaint deleting the prayer for partition and pursuing the relief for recovery of possession against defendants 8 to 11. The plaintiffs have however asserted that the property belongs to them and defendants 1 to 7 in co- ownership and have sought a decree for injunction against defendants 8 to 11.

2. I should immediately note that the suit is of the year 1994 and the original pleadings were completed long before the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act), 2002. Therefore the embargo under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply in the instant case. The mere fact that the evidence in the suit has already commenced does not disable the court below from allowing the application for amendment. O.P.(C) No.2069 of 2013 2 3. The purpose of the amendment is only to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of suits. The prayer for recovery of possession of the share of the plaintiffs from defendants 8 to 11 already existed in the original plaint. It has only be clarified by way of amendment that recovery of possession is sought from defendants 8 to 11 as co-owners of the property. I do not feel that the nature of the suit is altogether altered or that the petitioner/tenth defendant is in anyway prejudiced . Added to this is the fact that the defendants 8 to 11 have already filed an additional written statement to the amended plaint.

4. There is no error of jurisdiction in the order impugned warranting interference in this supervisory jurisdiction. The Original Petition is disposed of. V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE smm