Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KODAMTHURUTHU PANCHAYATH SCHEDULTED versus OUSEPACHAN ALIAS JOSEPH

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KODAMTHURUTHU PANCHAYATH SCHEDULTED v. OUSEPACHAN ALIAS JOSEPH - WP(C) No. 770 of 2007(N) [2007] RD-KL 470 (8 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 770 of 2007(N)

1. KODAMTHURUTHU PANCHAYATH SCHEDULTED
... Petitioner

Vs

1. OUSEPACHAN ALIAS JOSEPH,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

Dated :08/01/2007

O R D E R

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

W.P.(C)NO.770 OF 2007

DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JANUARY, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.277/05 on the file of Munsiff Court, Cherthala. Respondent is the plaintiff. Respondent filed I.A.3030/06, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint. Under Ext.P9 order, learned Munsiff allowed the application. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

2. Arguments of learned Counsel appearing for petitioner was that by the amendment the nature of the suit will be changed and learned Munsiff has not considered the objections raised by petitioner and petitioner had earlier instituted another suit and in that suit the way claimed is not the way now being claimed and that suit was withdrawn and in such circumstances, Ext.P9 order is to be quashed.

3. Under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, learned Munsiff has a wide discretion to allow an application for amendment of the plaint for a just decision of the case. Learned Munsiff has exercised the discretion by permitting the amendment. The nature of the suit will not be changed by the amendment. So also the character of the suit will W.P.(c)770/07 2 not be changed. In such circumstances, in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P9 order. Petitioner is entitled to file an additional written statement taking all the contentions raised herein. Writ petition is dismissed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE

Acd W.P.(c)770/07 3


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.