Rugmini vs Soman | Antha | Anil | Mangal | Roobi Anoop

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6257

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. Krishna Kumar, J
Rugmini – Appellant
Versus
Soman | Antha | Anil | Mangal | Roobi Anoop – Respondent
OP(C) 1036/2015

Important Points

A party may raise amendment issues in appellate proceedings if the trial court denies the application.

Subject

Civil Law - Procedure

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Article 225

Headnote

This case examines the petitioner's appeal against the Munsiff Court's order, which denied an amendment application. The court found that allowing such an amendment post-final hearing would alter the suit's structure. The petitioner claimed this amendment was crucial for the defense's effectiveness. However, the court upheld the Munsiff's order, stating the petitioner could address such matters in appellate proceedings. Ultimately, the case was disposed with liberty granted to the petitioner for appellate considerations.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. Thomas M. Jacob, Sri. T.R. Jerry Sebastian
For the Respondents: Sri. Rajit

Table of Content
1. assessment of the amendment's impact on suit structure. (Para 1)
2. claim about necessity of amendments for defense. (Para 2)
3. court's ruling on jurisdiction and appellate options. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court against the order passed by the Munsiff court, Chavakkad. By the said order, the learned Munsiff found that if the amendment sought for was allowed, it would change the entire structure of the suit, and hence, after the examination of few witnesses, such an attempt could not be permitted. The court also noted that the said petition was filed by the defendant after posting the suit for a final hearing.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless the amendment is allowed the very purpose of the defence would be defeated.

3. After going through the records available before this Court, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order, by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 225 of the Constitution of India . However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise those matters in case the ultimate result of the suit turns against her and she carries the matter to the appellate court. In that circumstance, the appellate court will consider on merit whether the amendment application ought to have been allowed or not.

The Original Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

P.KRISHNA KUMAR, JUDGE dlk/31.01.

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1036/2015 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.881/2009 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT CHAVAKKAD.

EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATMENT IN OS NO.881/2009 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHAVAKKAD.

EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF MADATORY INJUCTION PETITION NUMBERED AS IA.NO.110/2010.

EXHIBIT-P4 TRUECOPY OF PETITION FOR AMENDMENT I.A.NO.2128/2015.

EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE AMENDMENT PETITION.

EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF ORER DATED 28.2.2015 IN I.A.NO.2128/2015 IN O.S.NO.881/2009.