AMINA Vs. KUNJUBAWA
LAWS(KER)-2005-10-34
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on October 18,2005

AMINA Appellant
VERSUS
KUNJUBAWA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAJASEKHARAN NAIR V. RAJU [REFERRED TO]
SURYA DEV RAI VS. RAM CHANDER RAI [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAVATHI VS. KUNHATHABI UMMA [REFERRED TO]
AMMINI KUTTY VS. GEORGE ABRAHAM [REFERRED TO]
KARTHIAYANI VS. RAMANATHAN [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BHASKARAN NAIR VS. P CHANDRAMATHIYAMMA [LAWS(KER)-2005-12-47] [REFERRED TO]
MATHAI N P VS. RANJITH PETER [LAWS(KER)-2012-8-397] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

V. Ramkumar, J. - (1.)Heard both sides.
(2.)The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 262/1993 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha. The said suit was one for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of title and also for a perpetual injunction in respect of a portion of the property. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the decree, the petitioners filed A.S. No. 67/1998 before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. While the appeal was pending, they moved I.A. No. 864/2004 for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The said application was dismissed as per Ext.P3 order inter alia on the ground that it was belated. It is the said order which is assailed in this Writ Petition.
(3.)Placing strong reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Karthiayani and Ors. v. Ramanathan and Ors., 2005 (2) KLT 115 : 2005 (1) KLJ 730, the learned Counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not lie against the dismissal of a petition for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. I do not think that the said decision can survive the subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, 2003 (3) KLT 490 wherein the scope and amplitude of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution has been very succinctly expatiated by the apex court. In a fit case the jurisdiction of this Court can be exercised to interfere with an order erroneously allowing or refusing to allow the amendment of pleadings.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.