Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, J
MADHUSOODANAN NAIR – Appellant
Versus
SAMUEL – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 1938 OF 2016
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to rejection of amendment application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court allows amendment, citing lack of prejudice. (Para 3) |
| 3. original petition disposed favorably. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
This Original Petition is filed challenging Ext. P10 order passed by the learned Munsiff, whereby the applications filed by the petitioner for amending the plaint and for effecting publication under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure were rejected.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, by the amendment sought, he was only attempting to clarify the public nature of the pathway, and not to alter the case set up in the plaint.
3. After going through Exts. P2 to P9, I am of the view that allowing the amendment would not cause any prejudice to the defendants. The petitioner is seeking to amend the plaint only to bring on record the public nature of the pathway. At any rate, the defendant will get an opportunity to controvert the said allegation.
4. In the above circumstances, Ext. P10 order is set aside, and the applications are allowed.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
