SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4655

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
BINU – Appellant
Versus
VIMALA NEPOLEAN – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 341 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM, SHRI.THOMAS C.ABRAHAM
For the Respondents: SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI, SRI.HARISH GOPINATH, SHRI.B.RAHUL KRISHNAN, SMT.N.V.SANDHYA, SMT.DHANUJA M.S, SMT.MANJIMA UDAYAKUMAR, SHRI.R.SAM

Court reinforces the right to amend pleadings when substantiated by new evidence, balancing procedural integrity with fairness to parties.

Headnote:This original petition challenges Ext.P25 order rejecting an application for amendment due to insufficient cause for delay. The Court found the petitioner justified for the amendment given new information from a commission report, emphasizing that such amendment facilitates proper adjudication (Para 2). The main issue involved the right to amendment in long-standing suits, where the Court clarified that respondents would not suffer prejudice and would retain the right to file additional statements (Para 3). The petition is allowed, the previous order set aside, and the amendment to the suit is prescribed to be carried out within one month (Final Result).

Table of Content
1. challenging court order on amendment grounds (Para 1)
2. court's insight on amendment rights (Para 2 , 3)

JUDGMENT

The original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P25 order, whereby an application for amendment has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not made out sufficient cause to show that even after exercise of due diligence, the matter could not be placed before the Court earlier. Another reason stated is that the suit comes under the

10+ year old cases.

2. I have gone through the materials on record and heard the counsel. The amendment has been sought after a report was filed by the Commissioner on 29.06.2022 regarding the properties. The matters which were brought out in the commission report could not have been within the knowledge of the petitioner earlier and it cannot be said that there is no exercise of due diligence in such cases. I find that the petitioner is justified in making the request for amendment.

Such an amendment would only result in a proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties.

3. The counsel appearing for the 1st respondent raised serious objections for allowing the amendment stating that it is a suit of 2011. I do not find any reason not to allow the amendment particularly since the respondents will not in any manner be prejudiced and will always have a right to file additional written statement.

4. In the result, the original petition is allowed.

Ext.P25 is set aside. IA.No.7 of 2023 in OS.No.438 of 2011 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kollam stands allowed. The petitioner shall carry out the amendment within one month from today. The respondents will be entitled to file additional written statement, if any to the amended suit. The trial shall proceed thereafter. The parties shall appear before the Court below on 05.02.2026.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top