Amendments to pleadings are permissible unless trial has commenced, emphasizing the necessity for courts to assess due diligence in such applications.

JUDGMENT :

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.

These original petitions are filed against the common order dated 17.08.2022 in I.A. No.1 of 2022 in O.P.(Electricity) Nos.45 of 2005 and 99 of 2006 passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge – II, Kalpetta.

2. The petitioner is the owner of 0.6680 hectors landed property comprised in Re. Sy No.403 of 2011 of Kaniyambatta Village, Vythiri Taluk, Wayanad District. In November 2003 and April 2005, the Kerala State Electricity Board (the KSEB) drew 33 K.V. electric line through the property of the petitioner for which various fruit bearing and yielding trees were cut and the land was injuriously affected. Since the compensation paid by the KSEB was inadequate, the petitioner filed O.P.(Ele) No.45 of 2005 seeking enhanced compensation of Rs.5,64,320/- for the trees cut and removed in November 2003 and O.P.(Ele) No.99 of 2006 seeking enhanced compensation of Rs.1,13,353/- for the trees cut and removed in April 2005, before the District Court, Kalpetta. Both the original petitions were tried jointly and the learned District Judge, by Ext. P2 common order, granted enhanced compensation of Rs.21,408/- in O.P.(Ele) No.45 of 2005 and Rs.988/- in O.P(Ele) No.99 of 2006.

3. Dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned District Judge in Ext. P2 order, the petitioner preferred C.R.P. Nos. 533 and 534 of 2012 before this Court. By Ext. P3 order dated 05.08.2021, this Court found that the manner in which the compensation towards the value of the trees cut was fixed in Ext. P2 is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India v. Satyagopal Roy [(2002) 3 SCC 527]. Accordingly, the revision petitions were allowed and the original petitions were remitted to the learned District Judge for fresh consideration based on the principle of injurious affection and to fix the compensation for the trees cut, following the procedure prescribed in Airports Authority of India (supra) and KSEB v Livisha and Others [(2007) 6 SCC 792]. The learned District Judge was directed to take steps to dispose of the matter within six months after affording an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence.

4. The petitioner filed Ext. P4 application (in both cases) dated 21.05.2022 for amendment of the original petitions (Electricity), seeking to delete and substitute the figures relating to the trees, yield, compensation etc., and to insert certain paragraphs and prayer. The amendments sought are in relation to the yield, diminution value of the property, value for jurisdictional purpose and also the rate of compensation originally pleaded. The petitioner now seeks enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,18,66,157/- with 12% interest in O.P. (Ele) No.45 of 2005 in place of the earlier claim of Rs.5,64,320/- and Rs.1,29,68,383/- with 12% interest in O.P.(Ele) No.99 of 2006 in place of the earlier claim of Rs.1,13,353/-.

5. The KSEB filed Ext. P5 counter statement to Ext. P4 application. It is contended that Ext. P4 application is highly belated and if the amendment is permitted, it would virtually enable the petitioner to claim an enhanced compensation at the rate of 133% in O.P.(Ele) No.45 of 2005 and 125% in O.P.(Ele) No.99 of 2006.

6. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed application for extension of time stipulated in Ext. P3 order and the same was allowed by this Court as per Ext. P6 order dated 31.05.2022, granting a further period of six months to dispose of the original petitions.

7.The learned District Judge considered Ext. P4 application