JIBU MATHEW Vs. ST. MICHELS CHURCH, THATHAMPILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application filed by the defendant to amend the written statement and to receive additional documents in evidence at the appellate stage has been rejected by the order impugned. It is trite law that such applications have to be considered along with the appeal only as the allowing of amendment or the reception of documents may entail a remand. A reference in this connection to the decisions in Ahamedkutty vs. Sub Judge (1990 (1) KLT 716) and Parvathy Chellammal vs. Chellamma Santhamma (1989 (2) KLT SN 9) are apposite. The order impugned dismissing I.A No.729/2011 in A.S No.120/2009 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge of Alappuzha is hence set aside. The court below is directed to consider I.A Nos. 728/2011 and 729/2011 along with the appeal at the time of its final disposal. The appellate court has of course to consider as to whether the defendant has satisfied the conditions laid down in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Needless to say that the defendant is entitled to file an additional affidavit in this regard if necessary and the court below shall compete the exercise untrammelled by the orders impugned.