USMAN Vs. UNNIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exts.P5, P5(a) and P5(b) are under challenge in this Original Petition. The petitioners are defendant Nos.7 to 10 in O.S. No.60 of 2014 on the files of the court below.

(2.) Heard.

(3.) I.A. Nos.744 of 2016 and 745 of 2016 were filed by defendant Nos.7 and 10 respectively praying for amending the written statement. I.A. No.746 of 2016 was filed by defendant Nos.8 and 9 in the suit praying for amending the written statement. The court below dismissed the above said interlocutory applications by separate orders, namely Exts.P5, P5(a) and P5(b). Exts.P5, P5(a) and P5(b) were passed by the court below on the ground that the applications were belated applications. It is not disputed that the trial was not commenced. No other reason had been stated by the court below to pass Exts.P5, Case No. OPC 1763/2019 P5(a) and P5(b) orders. Since no reason had been stated for dismissing I.A. Nos.744 of 2016, 745 of 2016 and 746 of 2016, apart from stating that the said applications were belated applications, I am of the view that Exts.P5, P5(a) and P5(b) orders passed by the court below cannot be sustained.