THILAKARAJ KUMARAN Vs. PAREETH MUHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is first defendant and respondent, plaintiff in O.S.681 of 2003 on the file of Munsiff Court, Cherthala. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order whereunder application for amendment of the plaint filed under Order VI Rule 17 was allowed, except in respect of amendment NO.8 sought for. Under Ext.P7, learned Munsiff reviewed Ext.P6 order, stating that amendment disallowed was not amendment No.8, but amendment No.10. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Exts.P6 and P7 orders.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondent were heard.

(3.) Argument of learned counsel appearing for petitioner was that second defendant was impleaded at a belated stage and when evidence was to be taken, I.A.613 of 2006 was filed to amend the plaint and under Ext.P6 order learned Munsiff allowed the application and as a result the very property has been altered and therefore learned Munsiff should not have allowed the application and Exts.P6 and P7 orders are to be quashed.