Kerala High Court
Kumari Latha B.R vs Kumari Geetha V.R on 4 November, 2016
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/24TH PHALGUNA, 1938
OP(C).No. 3219 of 2016 (O)
---------------------------
IA.NO.6902/2016 IN OS.NO. 542/2013 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT
(RCC),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
----
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. KUMARI LATHA B.R.,
W/O. SREE JAYAN THAMPI R.A., AGED 50,
THEKKEKONATHU VEEDU,
SREEKANDESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
2. SREEJAYAN THAMPI R.A.,
28/1335(3), THEKKEKONATHU VEEDU,
SREEKANDESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
KUMARI GEETHA V.R.,
SRA-133, THEKKEKONATHU VEEDU, SREEKANDESWARAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-03-2017,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SKG
OP(C).No. 3219 of 2016 (O)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL SUIT IN
O.S.NO.542/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE
DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.542/2013.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.6902/2016 IN O.S.NO.542/2013 ON
THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04-11-2016 IN
I.A.NO.6902/2016 IN O.S.NO.542/2013 ON THE FILED OF
THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------- NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
SKG
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
=========================
O.P.(C).No,3219/2016
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are the plaintiffs in OS No. 542/2013 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The suit is for prohibitory injunction. The petitioners also filed an application to amend the relief of mandatory injunction. That application has been dismissed by the court below noting that the relief for mandatory injunction is barred by limitation. The petitioners also want to amend the extent of the plaint schedule property. I am of the view that the amendment petition ought to have been allowed for proper adjudication of the suit. However, it is open for the respondent to raise contention regarding limitation in the written statement. The question relating to limitation on mandatory injunction would depend upon the plaint allegations. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the amendment application is allowed.
The original petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms