AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Bhavadasan, J.—Under challenge is Ext.P11 order passed by the Munsiff''s Court, Neyyattinkara in I.A.5694 of 2009 in O.S. 523 of 1997 whereby an application for amendment of the plaint seeking a lesser relief was dismissed by the court below. The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows:
The suit initially instituted was one for declaration of title and possession of the suit property and for other consequential reliefs. The suit is resisted by the defendants. Initially the suit was decreed as could be seen from Ext.P1. The decree was challenged in appeal as A.S.70 of 2002 before the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara by the third defendant and A.S.182 of 2002 by defendants 1 and 2 before the same court. The appeals were heard together and were disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment. The appeals were allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh trial to the trial court. Though the remand order was challenged in F.A.O. 45 of 2006 before this court, it was dismissed by Ext.P3 order.
After the remand, the plaintiff wanted the plaint to be amended confining the relief to one of possessory title instead of absolute title. Therefore the petitioner filed I.A.5694 of 2009. Petition was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the petition seeking amendment is belated and it changes the character of the suit.
The court below came to the conclusion that by allowing the amendment, character of the suit would be changed and therefore the amendment could not be allowed.
It is pointed out that it is after remand that certain documents were produced showing that the property was originally service inam land and that the plaintiffs could claim only possessory title. That had necessitated the amendment sought for in the plaint. After having gone through the application for amendment, which is produced as Ext.P8, it is difficult to understand as to how the amendment changes the character of the suit. Originally the suit was one for declaration of title and injunction. Now the second plaintiff seeks to confine the relief to one of possessory title. All that needs to be considered is whether by allowing the amendment the character of the suit would be changed and whether any prejudice would be caused to the defendants. One fails to understand how the character of the suit would be changed by allowing the amendment. Though belated, in the light of the averments in the amendment application, namely, Ext.P8, it is felt that in the interests of justice it is just and proper to allow the amendment to give a quietus to the dispute between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The order in I.A. 5694 of 2009 is set aside and the said application stands allowed. The petitioner will carry out the amendment. If the defendants are so advised, they shall be permitted to file additional written statement.