Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 69 versus P.A.THOMAS, S/O.P.T.ANTONY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 69 v. P.A.THOMAS, S/O.P.T.ANTONY - RCRev No. 236 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 13935 (24 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RCRev No. 236 of 2007()

1. P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 69,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. P.A.THOMAS, S/O.P.T.ANTONY,
... Respondent

2. P.A.BABU @ BABU ALAPPAT,

3. P.A.JOHN @ JOHNY ALAPPAT, A 12,

4. MANUEL ALAPPATT,

5. M/S ASSOCIATED LAWYERS, ADVOCATES,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

Dated :24/07/2007

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.

R.C.Rev.No.236 OF 2007 Dated 24th July, 2007

ORDER

Koshy,J.

Revision petitioner is the second respondent in I.A.No.7557/2006 in RCP No.145/2005. The above rent control petition was filed by respondents 1 to 4 seeking eviction of the revision petitioner and 5th respondent from the petition schedule building under section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Revision petitioner and 5th respondent were the tenants. Respondents 1 to 4 who filed the R.C.P. were partners of the firm called 'P.T.Antony and Sons'. During the pendency of the RCP, the firm was dissolved on 1.8.2006. The first petitioner in RCP (R1) was examined on 14.8.2006 and case was posted on 18.8.06. On that day, an application for amending the RCP was filed as the partnership firm was dissolved and P.T.Antony and Sons became a proprietorship concern and petition under Section 11(8) was filed for expansion of the business of the above concern. Tenants have not started to adduce evidence. Only first respondent adduced evidence. The application for amendment was allowed by the rent control court as well as appellate authority. Since amendment application was allowed before evidence of the tenants, they can adduce such evidence as is RCR.236/2007 2 required. If the revision petitioner wants, he can call the respondents for further cross examination also. Landlord can also adduce further evidence as amendment application was allowed. In these circumstances, we see no ground to interfere with the orders of the courts below. It is settled law that petition for amendment of pleadings should be liberally constructed. Merely because trial started, it cannot be rejected. But, court should allow both sides to adduce such evidence so as to avoid prejudice to the parties. We see no infirmity in the impugned orders. We are not expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the case.0 The revision petition is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY

JUDGE

K.P.BALACHANDRAN

JUDGE

tks


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.