P.K. Ravi v. U.A. Joseph and P.V. Bhaskaran

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Pius C. KuriaKose
Judgment Date: 2007-06-18
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of; the challenge to Exts. P4 and P5 is repelled, with the following modifications: Ext. P4 stands allowed only if the respondents pay Rs. 10,000 as costs within six weeks; Ext. P5 costs are increased to Rs. 5,000, to be remitted within six weeks. The court will consider costs under Section 35 CPC at the time of disposal of the suit and issue appropriate directions regarding costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; challenge to Exts. P4 and P5 repelled with modified costs; directions regarding Section 35 CPC costs to be considered at suit disposal.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.K. Ravi

Respondents

U.A. Joseph
P.V. Bhaskaran

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri T.K. Marthandan Unnithan
• Sri V. Jayakumar
• Sri K.P. Unnikrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri A.M. Shaffique
• Sri E.K. Nandakumar
• Sri A.K. Jayasankar Nambiar
• Smt. Priya Mahesh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C) No. 23843 of 2005) challenges two orders of the Sub Court, Thrissur in O.S.132/2001 and connected interlocutory applications (I.A. Nos. 3200/2005, 3201/2005, 3202/2005). The petitioner, P.K. Ravi, contends that Ext.s P4 and P5—whereby the court allowed drastic amendments to the written statement and the respondents’ application to adduce further evidence—were improperly exercised, especially since the amendment application was found to be hopelessly belated and aimed at protracting the suit. The court below, however, permitted these amendments on the ground of “interest of justice” and to avoid shutting out possible evidence. Counsel for the petitioner emphasized precedents cited in this Court (Jayakumaran Nair v. Vertex Securities Ltd., 2005 (4) KLT Sh.Notes Case 33) and the Supreme Court (Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh, 2006 (3) KLT 953) to argue for setting aside the orders. The Judge, while acknowledging these submissions, held that he would not justify setting aside Exts. P4 and P5. He modified the costs awarded by the trial court: Ext. P4 will stand allowed only upon payment of Rs. 10,000 within six weeks, and Ext. P5 costs increased to Rs. 5,000. The writ petition is disposed of with these modifications, and consideration of Section 35 CPC costs at disposal of the suit is noted.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 35 CPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Interest of justice
Necessity to forbear from shutting out evidence

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Exts. P4 and P5 were improperly allowed. The amendment to the written statement was hopelessly belated and a tactic to protract the proceedings. He submits that the court should not have interfered with the trial court’s discretionary decisions and that the lower court misapplied jurisprudence in allowing amendments despite delay.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, through their counsel, rely on the lower court’s assessment that the amendments were necessary in the interest of justice to prevent evidence from being shut out and to complete the contest, highlighting the court’s discretion to permit amendments and additional evidence in appropriate circumstances.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jayakumaran Nair v. Vertex Securities Ltd.	2005 (4) KLT Sh.Notes Case 33, p.26	Mentioned Only	Cited as persuasive authority by the petitioner’s counsel; the judge mentions it but does not rely on its ratio to alter the orders under challenge.
Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh	2006 (3) KLT 953	Mentioned Only	Cited as persuasive authority; discussed by the judge but not applied as binding to set aside Exts. P4 and P5.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2007 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1929 WP(C).No. 23843 of 2005(L) -------------------------I.A.3200, 3201 & 3202/05 IN OS.132/2001 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P.K.RAVI, S/O.KANDUNNY P.V., PARANGODATH HOUSE, KODAKARA (PO), THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.MARTHANDAN UNNITHAN SRI.V.JAYAKUMAR SRI.K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. U.A.JOSEPH, S/O.OOKKAN ANTONY, VELUTHOOR (PO), VELUTHOOR VILLAGE, TRICHUR TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. P.V.BHASKARAN, S/O.PANAMUKKU VELAYUDHAN, VELUTHOOR (PO), VELUTHOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SMT.PRIYA MAHESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.23843/05 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 – TRUE COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DT.19.2.98 EXT.P2 – TRUE COPY OF JOINT WRITTEN STATEMENT DT.23.8.03 IN O.S.132/01 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENTS. EXT.P3 – TRUE COPY OF AMENDMENT APPLICATION DT. 2.7.05 AS I.A.3200/05 IN O.S.132/01 OF SUB COURT, TRICHUR FILED BY RESPONDENTS. EXT.P4 – TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.23.7.05 OF SUB COURT IN I.A.3200/05 EXT.P5 – TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.23.7.05 IN I.A.3201 AND 3202/05 IN O.S.132/01 OF SUB COURT, TRICHUR.. /TRUE COPY/ ## **PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.** .......................................................... W.P.(C)No.23843 OF 2005 ........................................................... DATED THIS THE 18TH JUNE, 2007 ## **J U D G M E N T** Ext.P4 order by which the court below allowed incorporation of certain drastic amendments to the written statement and Ext.P5 order by which the court below allowed an application filed by the defendants for adducing further evidence are under challenge. Mr.T.K.M.Unnithan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Ext.P4 itself the court below has found that the amendment application is hopelessly belated and that the objective in filing the application is to protract the proceedings of the suit. Nevertheless, on what is described by the court below as interest of justice and the necessity to forbear from shutting out evidence, the court below allowed the amendment application. Like submissions were made by the learned counsel regarding Ext.P5 also. My attention was drawn by Mr.Unnithan to the judgment of this Court in **Jayakumaran Nair v. Vertex Securities Ltd.** (2005 (4) KLT Sh.Notes Case 33, p.26) and that of the Supreme Court in **Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh** (2006 (3) KLT 953). 2. Notwithstanding the strenuous and persuasive submissions of Mr.Unnithan, I do not think that this Court will be justified in setting aside Exts.P4 and P5 orders. The main thrust in the submissions of WP(C)N0.23843/05 -2- Mr.Unnithan was that if these contentions were raised earlier, perhaps the plaintiff-petitioner would not have remitted the full court-fee of Rs.42,000/-. Considering the submissions and the finding of the court below that the objective is to delay the proceedings and that there is hopeless delay, I am of the view that the cost of Rs.2500/- imposed by the court below for allowing the amendment application and the cost of Rs.1000/- imposed similarly for allowing I.A.3201 and 3202 of 2005 were on a very low side. It would have been proper if much higher amounts had been imposed by way of costs. Accordingly, in modification of Ext.P4, it is ordered that I.A.3200 of 2005 will stand allowed only if the respondents pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.2500/- to the plaintiff either directly or through his advocate in this court by way of costs within six weeks from today. Similarly, Ext.P5 will also stand modified to the extent of enhancing the amount of cost ordered by the court below to Rs.5000/(instead of Rs.1000/-). The amount of Rs.5000/- which is imposed as a condition for allowing I.A.3201 and 3202 of 2005 shall be remitted by the respondents within the aforesaid time-limit in the aforesaid manner itself. Subject to the above modifications, the challenge against Exts.P4 and P5 is repelled. It is needless to mention that at WP(C)N0.23843/05 -3- the time of disposing of the suit and passing orders regarding costs under Section 35 C.P.C., the court below will also take into account the circumstances under which the petitioner became obliged to remit the full court fee payable on the plaint and issue appropriate directions regarding costs. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. **(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)** tgl WP(C)N0.23843/05 -4- WP(C)N0.23843/05 -5- WP(C)N0.23843/05 -6-