MARADI JANU Vs. MELODANOMANAAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above original petition has been filed challenging Exts.P6 to P9 orders passed by the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba. Petitioners herein are defendants in OS No. 114 of 2013 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba, a suit filed for fixation of boundary and permanent prohibitory injunction.

(2.) A commission report was filed in the suit and the petitioners filed an application to remit the commission report which was declined by the trial court, against which OP(C)No. 254 of 2017 was filed which was dismissed as per Ext P3 judgment mainly finding that the petitioners have not raised any counterclaim along with the written statement or made any specific pleading to the effect that any property in possession of the petitioners herein is in the possession of the plaintiff. The petitioners submit that it is on an expectation that OP(C) No. 254 of 2017 will be allowed in their favour that the petitioners did not amend the written statement and raised a counterclaim. Thereafter, the petitioners filed IA No. 9 of 2023 (Ext P4) to amend the written statement including a counterclaim seeking recovery of possession. Thereafter, Ext P5 was filed seeking to amend the written statement. Later on, suit was listed for trial, thereupon Ext P6 application was filed to remove the case from the list. The same was dismissed and consequently, I.A. No. 9 of 2023 (Ext P4) was also dismissed as per Ext P7 order. Petitioners also filed I.A. 10 of 2023 for withdrawing I.A. No. 9 of 2023 and also seeking permission to file another application which was also dismissed as per Ext P8 order. Along with the same, I.A. No. 11 of 2023 was filed seeking permission to amend the written statement along with counterclaim, which was dismissed as per Ext P9. Exts.P6 to P9 orders were issued on 6/6/2023.

(3.) Petitioners relying on Order VI Rule 17 CPC submit that the court is well within its powers to allow amendment of the pleading at any stage of the proceedings if the amendment sought is found to be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Petitioners submit that the delay alone in making an application for amendment cannot be a ground for rejection of the application.