MATHEW THOMAS Vs. K.S. VALSAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit as originally filed was one for fixation of boundary and consequential injunction. The respondents/plaintiffs subsequently applied for amendment of the plaint. The relief of declaration of title and to set aside a settlement deed was sought to be incorporated by the amendment. The court below has by the order impugned allowed the application for amendment. The petitioner/defendant contends that the amended relief has become barred by limitation. That is a matter to be decided by the court below after framing issues. It is sufficient if the court below frames an issue on the bar of limitation. So is the case with regard to the valuation of the amended relief and the sufficiency of the court fee paid.

(2.) THE nature of the suit is not altered and the amendment is necessary to completely adjudicate all the issues. There is no error of jurisdiction to interfere with the order allowing amendment of the plaint. The court below has exercised its discretion in fixing a costs of Rs. 1,000/ -(Rupees One thousand only) as a condition for allowing the application for amendment.