KARIM Vs. RAMLA USMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No.2 in O.S.No.104 of 2008 of the court learned Munsiff, Aluva is the petitioner before me. He is aggrieved by Ext.P5, order dated 03.11.2010 allowing amendment of the plaint as requested for in Ext.P3, application - I.A.No.1499 of 2008.

(2.) RESPONDENT Nos.1 and 2 claimed title and possession of plaint A and B schedules as per assignment deed Nos.4978 of 2004 and 6334 of 2004. They also claimed that plaint C schedule is the pathway starting from the PWD road and reaching plaint A and B schedules which is their only access to the said properties. They claimed, among other things easement by way of grant over plaint C schedule. Petitioner filed written statement disputing claim of respondents. Thereafter respondents filed Ext.P3, application for amendment of plaint. Petitioner filed Ext.P4, objection. That application for amendment remained on the file of the court for quite some time and according to the learned counsel after the case was posted for trial this day (08.11.2010) learned Munsiff allowed Ext.P.3 application, on 03.11.2010 and thereafter the case is being taken up for trial this day. Learned counsel submits that Ext.P5, order is bad in law.

(3.) RESULTANTLY this petition is disposed of directing learned Munsiff, Aluva to grant sufficient opportunity to the petitioner in case after Ext.P5, order no opportunity was given to him to file additional written statement in answer to the amended plaint. The case shall be taken up for trial only after such opportunity is given to the petitioner and in case additional written statement is filed, after framing additional issues if any.