SARALA Vs. MEENA SUNIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In O.S.No.14 of 2006, on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, an application for amendment had come to be filed (I.A.No.3375 of 2006) by the plaintiffs (Respondents 1 and 2 herein) and although a counter affidavit had been filed by the defendants, ultimately the Court had allowed the application. The order indicates that there was no representation from the side of the defendants and in the interest of justice I.A. is allowed.

(2.) Mr.K.B.Pradeep, appearing for the petitioner herein, submits that notwithstanding the absence of party, the Court had a duty to look into the objections and independently assess the situation instead of allowing the application as not opposed.

(3.) A copy of the counter affidavit has been produced as Ext.P3. The contentions, which are normally taken at the time of written statement, apparently have been incorporated, but there is no suggestion that by the amendment of the plaint, the character of the suit, in any manner, will be changed. Even as of now, the petitioner will have the right to file a detailed written statement, consequent to the amendment that had been brought about in the plaint.