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) 14115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
C. DAVID LIVINGSTON – Appellant
Versus
WILSON – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 244 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC, DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY, SRI.JITHIN SAJI ISAAC, SHRI.ABHISHEK S. KUMAR, SHRI.JOSHUA SEBASTIAN
For the Respondents: SRI.D.KISHORE, SMT.MEERA GOPINATH, SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN, SHRI.ANANT KISHORE

Legal amendments post-final hearing are impermissible if prior knowledge of facts exists.

Headnote:The original petition concerns a partition suit filed in 2016 regarding a property described as a shed, which the defendants claim is not partible due to the existence of a building. The lower court rejected the petitioner's application to amend the plaint after the final hearing, finding no legal infirmity in this decision. The key issues included the timing of the amendment and the knowledge of the property's condition. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition without prejudice to the petitioner's rights in future proceedings.

JUDGMENT

The original petition arises from a partition suit which was filed in 2016. The plaint schedule property is shown as a shed. The written statement filed by the defendants says that the property is not partible and that there is an existing building in the plaint schedule property. The plaint proceeds as if there is an attempt to make construction and there is a prayer for a prohibitory injunction also. Much later, an application was filed in 2024 seeking to amend the plaint by showing the plaint schedule property as including a double storey building and the prayer portion of the suit is also sought to be amended accordingly. The court below disallowed the amendment finding that the petitioner knew about the existence of the building at least at the time of filing of the written statement and the amendment is sought after the final hearing itself was over. I do not find any legal infirmity in the decision of the court below.

The original petition hence fails and is dismissed. This is however without any prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise all questions that are legally permitted to be raised in the final decree proceedings, if the suit is decreed.

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