BALASARASWATHI.K.V Vs. K.JAYASENAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS original petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.70/2009 of the Sub Court, Payyanur for a declaration that amendment of written statement allowed by the learned Sub Judge without conducting enquiry under Rule 15 of Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') is not valid, to direct learned Sub Judge to conduct such an enquiry before commencement of trial and to issue further directions to the learned Sub Judge in the matter.

(2.) PETITIONER sued the respondents for recovery of money based on an agreement (allegedly) executed by the respondents on 17.02.2006. 1st respondent filed written statement contending that during the relevant time he was undergoing treatment for psychiatry problem and was not in a position to understand things in a proper way. During the relevant time the 1st respondent was suffering from psychiatry problem and that was the reason for his retiring from the partnership business. It was further contended that occasionally the 1st respondent will be subject to mental disorder causing kind of depression and will not be in a position to do necessary things according to his best judgment. He was under treatment of various psychiatrist of Kannur district for a long time.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel that in view of the contentions raised by the 1st respondent in Exhibit P2, written statement and the statement in paragraph 2 of the affidavit in support of Exhibit P3, application for amendment, it was necessary that the court below conducted enquiry under Rule 15 of Order XXXII of the Code. Learned counsel raises the apprehension that otherwise, after a decree is passed 1st respondent might come up with a contention that the decree is null and void as he was not having sound mental state of mind during the time the case was tried and disposed of.