C. P. THOMAS Vs. MANU M. JOHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.210/2012 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Thodupuzha, has filed this Original Petition, impugning Ext.P7 order of the said Court, as per which, his application for amendment of the plaint, namely, I.A.No.913/2017, has been dismissed as being not maintainable and without merits.

(2.) The petitioner alleges that the Trial Court has erred in issuing Ext.P7 order; and his specific assertion is that the amendments, that were sought to be made, are those which the Trial Court was obligated in law to allow, going by the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short). He thus prays that this Original Petition be allowed and that Ext.P6 be set aside; leading to his application for amendment, namely, I.A.No.913/2017, being allowed.

(3.) In refutation of the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel, Sri.Mathew John, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, Sri.Narendra Kumar, began by saying that the tenor of the suit filed by the petitioner refers to an alleged transaction in the nature of a 'benami property transaction', which is prohibited under the Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). He says that therefore, when the plaint contains averments indicating such a transaction, the Trial Court would obtain no jurisdiction to consider the same on account of the specific stipulations in Sections 45 and 65 of the Act, which mandates that the suit itself be transferred to the competent Adjudicating Authority under it.