The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of fair hearing and the importance of giving a reasonable opportunity to file objections in the context of amendment applications.

J. B. Koshy, J.

1. This revision petition is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.215 of 1993 on thefile of the Sub Court, Kattappana. The above suit was filed in 1993 fordeclaration of their title and recovery of possession of the plaint scheduleproperty, after setting aside gift deed No.394/1959 and for incidental reliefs.The written statement was filed in 1995 and the case was posted in the readylist in January 1995. Meanwhile in December, 1994, defendants filed I.A.No.1917 of 1994 to amend the written statement. The above amendment wasallowed by the learned Munsiff on the ground that no prejudice will be causedto the plaintiffs by amending the written statement and nature of the suit willnot be changed. The amendment sought for could not in any way cause anyinjustice to the plaintiffs. The necessary averments for the present amendmentwere already made in the earlier written statement itself. Therefore, learnedMunsiff found that amendment application can be allowed. This order ischallenged mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs were not allowed to file anobjection to the above.

2. It is the case of the revision petitioners that notice of the petition was givento them on 13-12-1994. On that day the junior advocate appearing for theplaintiffs filed an application for adjournment stating that he has to contact thesenior Advocate at Ernakulam and to contact his clients in Tamil Nadu for filingan objection. This was not allowed and the case was posted to the next dayfor filing objection and hearing and the order was passed without giving anopportunity to the petitioners to file an objection. It is the case of the petitionersthat if time for objection was granted they would have been able to prove thatadditional facts are introduced and amendment cannot be allowed in law. Sothe major case of the petitioners rest with violation of the principles of naturaljustice in not allowing them time for filing objection to the amendmentapplication.

3. It is pointed out by the petitioners that in Thampi v. Collector of CentralExcise (1989 (2) KLT 65) the party has got a right of hearing in the appealproceedings will not cure the defect of principles of natural justice in theoriginal proceedings. Therefore, to substantiate the case before this Courtpetitioners have got an opportunity is not a ground for not allowing them to fileobjection in the lower court. The petitioners then refer to R.41 of the CivilRules of Practice, where it is stated as follows:

"Unless the court otherwise orders, notice of an interlocutory application shallbe given to the other parties in the suit or matter or to their pleaders, not lessthan three days before the day appointed for the hearing of the application."

Therefore, it is contended that under the Civil Rules of Practice minimum threedays notice is necessary before the case is taken up for argument. Here thecase was posted for argument without giving time for filing objection.Therefore, the procedure adopted by the learned Munsiff, in posting the caseon the next day is violative of Civil Rules of Practice. It is also pointed out thatunder R.55, the opposite party is entitled to file an objection. Here no time forfiling objection was granted even when an application for adjournment alongwith affidavit by the junior advocate was filed. Therefore, the order is clearly inviolation of the Civil Rules of Practice and principles of natural justice.

4. In Rafiq and another v. Munshilal and another (AIR 1981 SC 1400) it washeld that party should not suffer for the inaction of his counsel. Here, in fact,an affidavit was filed for adjournment stating that since his party is at TamilNadu he cannot file an objection on the next day itself. In Joseph Michael v.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (1992 (1) KLT SN. 15 page 12) it was held thatorder passed without giving an opportunity to represent their case is invalid.

5. In Satya Narayan Maity v. Sunirmalendu Maity (AIR 1973 Cal. 201) it washeld that failure to give opportunity to