KALPANA Vs. PREMKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can an application, seeking an amendment of the plaint, casually filed before the appellate court, as if one under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, be allowed as a matter of course

(2.) The appellant in A.S.12/2011 of the District Court, Thodupuzha as plaintiff filed O.S.No.153/2008 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kattappana for declaration of his title over the plaint schedule property, for setting aside Ext.A2 sale deed, and for consequential injunction. The trial court after a full-fledged trial, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 24.11.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred the aforesaid appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, towards the fag end, it seems that the plaintiff has chosen to file I.A.No.534/2012 seeking an amendment of the plaint for incorporating a prayer for declaration that Ext.A2 sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the first defendant is void and not binding on the plaintiff or the plaint schedule property as relief No.1, and to incorporate a relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants as relief No.2, and also for amending the valuation portion of the plaint.

(3.) Even though it was objected to, it seems that the lower appellate court has chosen to allow I.A.No.534 of 2012 and then to remit the matter to the trial court for deciding the suit afresh, after incorporating the amendments in the plaint. Of course, an opportunity has been granted to the defendants to file additional pleadings, by way of additional written statement. It is aggrieved by the said remand, the present appeal has been filed.