PILICODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH v Echikululangara Sree Narayanapuram Kshethra Seva Sangham and Others

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ## `OP(C) NO. 2371 OF 2015` ``` IN AS 25/2006 OF SUB COURT, HOSDRUG ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` PILICODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PILICODE PILICODE VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. ``` ``` BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN SMT.PREM BINDU T.K. SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN SRI.V.VISAL AJAYAN ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` - `1 ECHIKULANGARA SREE NARAYANAPURAM KSHETHRA SEVA SANGHAM` - `BY ITS PRESIDENT 671123` - `2 P.A.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, RESIDING AT MADHURAKKAT IN AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O. AJANUR. 671123.` - `3 M.SHANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI S/O. VISHNU NAMBOOTHIRI, RESIDING AT VELLACHAL IN KODAKKAD VILLAGE HOSDURG TALUK, P.O. KODAKKAD 671123.` - `4 T.T.BALACHANDRAN S/O.KELAPPAN NAIR, RESIDING AT ACHIKOVVAL IN PILICODE VILLAGE HOSDURG TALUK, P.O. PILICODE. 671123.` - `5 M.VINAYAN S/O.M.CHATHU, RESIDING AT CHOORIKOVVAL IN KODAKKAD VILLAGE HOSDURG TALUK P.O.KODAKKAD 671123.` - `6 M.G.SASIDHARAN S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, RESIDING AT ACHIKOVVAL IN PILICODE VILLAGE HOSDURG TALUK, P.O. PILICODE. 671123.` - `7 K.V.KALLIANI W/O.A.V.KORAN, RESIDING AT ACHIKOVVAL IN PILICODE VILLAGE HOSDURG TALUK, P.O. PILICODE. 671123.` ``` O.P.(C)No.2371/2015 ``` ``` -:2:- ``` - `8 T.V.JAYACHANDRAN S/O.V.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT CHOORIKOVVAL IN KODAKKAD VILLAGE, KOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KODAKKAD 671123.` - `9 A.BHASKARAN S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, RESIDING AT ACHIKOVVAL IN PILICODE VILLAGE HOSDURG TALUK, P.O. PILICODE. 671123.` ``` BY ADVS.PREETHI P V DEEPA NARAYANAN(K/1754/1995) M.V.BALAGOPAL(K/707/2009) T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.)(S-310) ``` ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` O.P.(C)No.2371/2015 ``` ``` -:3:- ``` Dated this the 23[rd] day of February, 2023 ## **J U D G M E N T** Challenging Ext P4 order passed in I.A.No.153/2015 in A.S.No.25/2006 passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Hosdurg, the appellant has filed the original petition. The respondents are the respondents in the appeal. 2. The relevant antecedent facts, leading to Ext P4 order, are: - (i) The first respondent had filed O.S.No.20/1998 before the Court of the Munsiff, Hosdurg, against the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 9, for a decree of declaration that plaint ‘A’ schedule Kshethra kulam and the appurtenant land belongs to it and consequentially, they are entitled for decree for recovery of possession. - (ii) The respondents 2 to 9 were subsequently impleaded as defendants in the suit. - (iii) The case of the petitioner is that plaint ‘A’ ``` O.P.(C)No.2371/2015 ``` ``` -:4:- ``` schedule Kshethra kulam is being used for religious purposes. As per Ext A8 Adangal extract, the plaint ‘A’ schedule is a puramboke land. (iv) The trial court decreed the suit. - (v) Aggrieved by the decree, the petitioner had preferred A.S.No.25/2006 before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Hosdurg. - (vi) During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed I.A.No.153/2015 (Ext P3), to amend the written statement. - (vii)The Appellate Court, by the impugned Ext P4 order, dismissed Ext P3 application. - (viii) Ext P4 is patently wrong, irregular and unsustainable in law. Hence, the original petition. 3. Heard; Sri. Vipin Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M.V. Balagopal, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. ``` O.P.(C)No.2371/2015 ``` ``` -:5:- ``` As the respondents 2 to 9 are the defendants in the suit and are sailing with the petitioner, notice to the said respondents is dispensed with at the risk of the petitioner. 4. The short question is, whether there is any illegality in Ext P4 order?. 5. The first respondent had filed the suit as early as on 07.01.1998. The petitioner contested the suit by filing Ext P2 written statement on 18.01.1999. The suit was decreed. 6. The petitioner challenged the decree by filing A.S.No.25/2006 before the Lower Appellate Court. 7. In 2015, the petitioner sought leave to amend the written statement, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(in short ‘Code’). 8. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code specifically prohibits amendment of pleadings after the ``` O.P.(C)No.2371/2015 ``` ``` -:6:- ``` commencement of trial, unless the party establishes that the matters that are sought to be incorporated were not matters within the knowledge of the party, despite due diligence. 9. In **Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Ors.** [2022 SCC Online 1128], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down exhaustive guidelines for the courts to decide an application seeking amendment of pleadings. It is inter alia, held that applications for amendment can be permitted, if there is no inordinate and un-explainable delay, which would cause prejudice to the opposite side. 10. The case on hand, it is reiterated that the suit is of the year 1998. It is nearly after 17 years, that the petitioner has ventured to file Ext P3 application, seeking leave to amend the written statement. ``` O.P.(C)No.2371/2015 ``` ``` -:7:- ``` 11. The court below, after considering Ext P3 application and the scope of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, has rightly rejected the application on the ground that it is highly belated. 12. It is trite; the exercise of the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to keep the courts of the District Judicature within their bounds of authority and to see that they do the duty as expected of them. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts. The exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice ``` O.P.(C)No.2371/2015 ``` ``` -:8:- ``` remains uncorrected. It is also nigh settled that while acting under this Article, the High Court is not acting as an appellate court to substitute its judgment in place of the subordinate courts. On a conspectus of pleadings and materials on record and taking into consideration the inexplainable and inordinate delay, I am of the view that there is no error warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original petition fails and is resultantly dismissed. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/23.02.23 //True copy/ P.A.To Judge ``` O.P.(C)No.2371/2015 ``` ``` -:9:- ``` ## `APPENDIX` ||`APPENDIX`| |---|---| |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |`EXT.P1.`|`TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.20/1998 ON`| ||`THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDURG`| |`EXT.P2.`|`TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN`| ||`O.S.20/1998.`| |`EXT.P3.`|`TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. 153/2015 IN`| ||`A.S.25/2006.`| |`EXT.P4.`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.153/2015 IN`| ||`A.S.25/2006 DATED 14.7.2015.`| ## `RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL`