Trivandrum Golf Club vs State of Kerala and Others

Thomas P. Joseph, J.—This Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P5, order dated 28.06.2010 on I.A. No. 3456 of 2010 in O.S. No. 60 of 2010 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner sued respondents for a declaration that termination of licence agreement between itself and respondent No. 1 is illegal and for consequential reliefs. There was an application for temporary injunction to restrain respondents from dispossessing petitioner but ultimately, this Court allowed the respondents to take possession of the suit property which the Supreme Court has confirmed. The Supreme Court has directed learned Additional Sub Judge to dispose of the suit within three months from the date of respondents filing written statement. Case stood posted on 10.07.2010 for respondents to file written statement. While so, petitioner filed I.A. No. 3456 of 2010 on 19.06.200 for amendment of the plaint and I.A. No. 3457 of 2010 to advance hearing of the suit. Case was posted on 22.06.2010 on which day respondents filed written statement. Petitioner sought amendment of the plaint vide I.A. No. 3456 of 2010 to incorporate certain events which according to the petitioner happened subsequent to the institution of the suit and are required to be pleaded in the plaint. That application was opposed by the respondents. Learned Sub Judge vide Ext.P5, order took the view that since what is required to be brought in is nothing but subsequent judgments, it is not necessary that it must be specifically pleaded, evidence could be adduced and consequently dismissed the application. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that events which took place after filing of the suit are required to be pleaded and without such plea no amount of evidence could be brought in. It is contended that for proper adjudication of controversy between the parties amendment sought for is necessary. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents contend that it is not necessary to bring in materials referred to in I.A. No. 3456 of 2010 in the plaint and that the only attempt of petitioners is to prejudice the mind of court dealing with the case and to give a wrong interpretation of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter.

I have gone through the averments in the plaint and what is pleaded in the plaint in general is that termination of the licence agreement at the instance of the respondents is illegal and hence based on that termination respondents are not entitled to evict petitioner from the suit property. What is sought to be incorporated by amendment are events subsequent to institution of the suit leading to the decision of the Supreme Court confirming which allowed respondents to take possession of the suit property. True, it is seen from the affidavit in support of I.A. No. 3456 of 2010 that certain portions of judgment of the Supreme Court are also sought to be incorporated by amendment but, there is no case and, learned Additional Sub Judge also did not think so that the amendment if brought in will change the character and nature of the suit. No additional reliefs are sought by amendment. What is required to be brought in are only subsequent events though much of the portions sought to be incorporated by amendment related to some observations made by the Supreme Court in its judgment. Even if it is assumed that those subsequent events are brought into the plaint by amendment, it need not prejudice mind of trial court. Certainly the trial court has to decide the case on the strength of the averments in the plaint as to the validity of termination of the licence agreement and whether respondents are entitled to do so and evict the petitioner. Having gone through the affidavit in support of application for amendment and the order under challenge I am persuaded to think that for a proper decision of the case, it is necessary that the application for amendment is allowed and the subsequent events are also brought into the pleadings of the petitioner. However I make it clear that allowing the amendment does not mean that this Court is giving its seal of approval to whatever averments that are sought to be made by amendment.

Resultantly this Writ Petition is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside and I.A. No. 3456 of 2010 will stand allowed. Petitioner shall carry out the amendment within fourteen (14) days from this day or within such time as may be extended by the court below. Court below will ensure that the time limit fixed by the Supreme Court is complied in the matter of disposal of the suit.