Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KOYA, S/O. MARAKKAR HAJI versus P.V. KUNHJU, S/O. VARKEY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KOYA, S/O. MARAKKAR HAJI v. P.V. KUNHJU, S/O. VARKEY - WP(C) No. 6755 of 2007(D) [2007] RD-KL 12486 (9 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 6755 of 2007(D)

1. KOYA, S/O. MARAKKAR HAJI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. P.V. KUNHJU, S/O. VARKEY,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON

For Respondent :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :09/07/2007

O R D E R

M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

WP(C)No. 6755 OF 2007 D

Dated this the 9th July, 2007.



JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed against the order of the Munsiff, Kalpetta in rejecting the prayer of the defendant to receive an additional written statement. The suit is based on Ext.A1 agreement and on the reverse of Ext.A1 which is marked as Ext.A1(a), the total supply is Rs.3,31,764/- out of which Rs.2,50,000/- is paid and the balance is Rs.81,764/-. It is alleged to be signed by the defendant and witnessed by two witnesses. Now the attempt of the defendant is to deny the entry in Ext.A1(a). This agreement was produced along with the plaint at the time of filing of the suit itself and even in the written statement in para 3 the defendant has taken care to deny the entries starting from 8.12.2003 to 6.11.2004. So, it is crystal clear that he was aware of these things even at the time of filing of the written statement. Thereafter, P.W.1 has been examined and cross-examined at length. Thereafter the present application is filed for making an amendment to the written statement. By allowing additional written statement to be filed at this stage it will take away a valuable right and further under Order VI Rule 17 CPC amendment of the written statement which is now filed and WPC 6755/07 2 styled as an additional written statement cannot be entertained after the commencement of the trial unless there are warranting circumstances to do so. This appears to be only an after thought when the defendant is confronted to face a difficult situation because of the endorsement behind Ext.A1 document, which is marked as Ext.A1(a). Therefore I find that the court below was perfectly justified in rejecting the application and therefore the writ petition is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN Judge jj


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.