This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CrL.MC 3354/2023) under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C filed by Sandeep Sankar challenging the order in SC 837/2017 of the Additional Sessions Judge, VIII, Ernakulam, in a NDPS offence. The petitioner is charged under sections 22 and 23 read with Sec. 8(c) of the NDPS Act for possession of 180 kg of khat leaves seized from a consignment addressed to Kollam. The prosecution alleges that khat leaves contained cathinone and cathine, psychotropic substances listed in the NDPS Act, with field tests and Kerala Forest Research Institute analysis supporting the finding. The petitioner argues that khat leaves were not categorized as a psychotropic substance in 2017 and that they are commonly consumed as herbal tea in Africa; thus, the trial should not proceed for an NDPS offence. The respondents counter that identical contentions were raised in Crl.M.C. 4186/2017 and rejected; at the stage of framing charges under Sec. 227 Cr.P.C., the court must consider broad probabilities and the total effect of the record, not conduct a roving trial. The court relies on principles from Kanchan Kumar v State of Bihar and related authorities to hold that the material on record discloses a prima facie case, and that cathinone/cathine presence makes the substance a psychotropic under the NDPS Act. Accordingly, the Sessions Judge’s order denying discharge is correct, and the petition is dismissed, with no interference in the prosecution."
MAT.APPEAL NO. 302 OF 2019; CROSS OBJECTION NO. 171 OF 2019; O.P.(FC) NO. 544 OF 2023; O.P.(FC) NO. 549 OF 2023 This is a Kerala High Court judgment disposing of a matrimonial dispute arising from O.P. No. 497/2015 filed by the petitioner-wife in the Family Court, Malappuram, seeking the return of gold and diamond ornaments, cash and a teak almirah said to have been given as dowry. The Family Court allowed the petition and decreed that Respondents 1 and 3 to 5 (husband and in-laws) return ornaments worth ₹6,89,529, cash ₹34,00,000 and the teak almirah valued at ₹35,000 with interest at 6% per annum within two months. The Respondents challenged by Mat Appeal No. 302/2019, arguing that the petitioner failed to prove entrustment of the entire dowry ornaments and that the burden of proof lies with the claimant; they also contended the amounts and liabilities were not as decreed, and sought relief including non-liability of R4 and R5. The High Court, after analyzing the evidence, partly allowed the appeal, modifying the decree: (i) R1 and R3 to return the ornaments or ₹6,89,529 with 6% interest; (ii) ₹25,00,000 with 6% interest; (iii) ₹35,000 for the teak almirah, with costs to the petitioner; (iv) the attachment in IA 1198/2015 was set aside. The court also held R4 and R5 not liable for the decree amount and allowed the related OPs. The matter was disposed by a common judgment dated 16 October 2023 by a Division Bench (Amit Rawal, C.S. Sudha, JJ.).
This appeal, originating from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, challenges an award dated 10 October 2013 in O.P.(M.V.) No.1011/2007. The petitioners, legal representatives of Ouseph Joy, died in a motor-vehicle collision on 14 April 2007 when a Mini Lorry abruptly turned left, causing the timber projecting from the lorry to strike him. The Tribunal held the driver negligent and awarded ₹5,95,000 as compensation, directing the insurer to deposit the amount and recover it from the owner and driver. The respondents contested the quantum, arguing that the evidence failed to prove the deceased’s age, occupation, and income and that the compensation was excessive. The 3rd respondent admitted insurance coverage; the other respondents were ex parte. The petitioners contended that the deceased, a businessman, earned ₹6,000 per month, not ₹3,500 as fixed by the Tribunal, and urged enhancement. They invoked the Supreme Court’s Pranay Sethi principles to align heads of compensation (loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of consortium, etc.) with modern standards. The High Court, while upholding negligence, allowed a reassessment: it fixed monthly income at ₹6,000, added 25% for future prospects, and recalculated dependency to yield a higher aggregate, including adjustments to funeral expenses and loss of estate, with total additional compensation of ₹4,94,500 at 7.5% interest. The appeal is allowed accordingly, with directed recoveries and payment timelines.
MFA (Forest) Nos. 33, 43 & 53 of 2013 The High Court of Kerala, Division Bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran, decided on 1 February 2023, in three connected appeals under S.8 of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The appellants (respondents in the original Forest Tribunal proceedings) sought relief under vesting exemptions for lands belonging to a family partition, contending the properties do not constitute forest lands and are not covered by the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949. The Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode, via three OA numbers (47/2009, 48/2009, 49/2009), held that the scheduled properties do not possess forest characteristics and are not within the ambit of the Vesting Act’s forest definition; it also held that the lands are not under the MPPF Act, as the notified Malavaram extent did not exceed the threshold. The respondents urged that the lands form part of a larger Malavaram area and thus fall under MPPF, with disputed boundaries and an extensive survey (Ext.B1). The Tribunal found no notification under the applicable rules and relied on commission reports indicating bunds and agricultural use. The High Court upheld the Tribunal, concluding the lands do not qualify as private forest lands under the Vesting Act, affirmed the declaration, and dismissed the appeals with costs.
MFA (Forest) No. 21 of 2011 This is an appeal under M.F.A.(Forest) No. 21 of 2011 arising from an OA (Forest) No. 32/1998 before the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode. The appellant Sunil Kumar challenged the Tribunal’s May 12, 2010 order in OA No. 32/1998, which dismissed his request for a declaration that the scheduled property was not a private forest and denied exemption under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The petition followed earlier attempts (OA 49/1993, subsequently dismissed) and a remand in MFA No. 481/2000 reversing some aspects of Ext.C2, directing the Tribunal to re-examine entitlement to exemptions. The High Court scrutinized whether the property is governed by the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (MPPF Act), the Vesting Act’s definitions (notably Section 2(f) and the exclusions), and the relevant rules (Rule 2A(2), 1974). It analyzed Ext.A1 to Ext.A13, the partition and title evidence, and the identity of the scheduled property, noting lack of registrable partition proof and credible cultivation evidence. The Court reaffirmed the Tribunal’s findings that the applicants failed to establish title and identity and held that if MPPF Act applied in 1949 it could continue to apply, with vesting provisions excluding exempt lands. The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the impugned order and leaving parties to bear their own costs.
The petitioners (Venupillai V.A. and Tulasi) have challenged Cr.M.C No. 6864 of 2017, seeking to quash FIR Annexure-B and the charge sheet Annexure-C in C.C. No. 594/2014 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumkandam. They are accused of offences under Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act and Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012. The petition argues that the underlying dispute is civil in nature and that the documents produced by the petitioners (Annexures C–G) show civil issues, thus no offence is disclosed or the proceedings are unsustainable; hence the quashing of proceedings is warranted. The State Public Prosecutor contends that the final report discloses the ingredients of the offences and that reliance on the petitioners’ documents would be inappropriate to quash. The High Court, citing State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, and Bhajan Lal, clarifies that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an exception and must be exercised sparingly to advance justice, not to stifle prosecutions. Neeharika Infrastructure and Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab are referenced to guide the balance of ends of justice and the private/private vendetta concerns. After analysis, the court declines to quash and dismisses the petition; observations relate solely to disposal, and rights to discharge remain open at the appropriate stage.
MACA NO. 1324 OF 2011 & OP (MAC) NO. 3536 OF 2011 These connected appeals arise from a common award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, dated 21.01.2011 in OP(MV) Nos. 545, 553, 554, 572 of 2006, and related petitions. The New India Assurance Company, insurer of the autorickshaw KL 01 T 1004, challenges the Tribunal’s awards on several grounds, including the insurer’s liability exceeding policy coverage where the vehicle carried seven passengers against a policy permitting only three. The tribunal directed deposition of the amounts awarded in all petitions, with liberty to recover excess amounts from the vehicle owner. The insurer contends that liability is confined to the number of insured passengers (three) and to the policy limits, relying on Anjana Shyam. The respondents/claimants argue for deposit of the entire awards to ensure full satisfaction and distribution, with subsequent recovery from the owner as permitted by law. The Kerala High Court reviews precedents—Anjana Shyam and United India Insurance Co. v. Poonam (2015)—and clarifies that while policy coverage limits the insurer’s liability to insured passengers, the insurer must initially deposit the entire amount of compensation awarded, with the right to recover lesser amounts from the owner. The court dismisses the appeal and original petition, confirming the Tribunal’s awards. The judgments align with settled law and do not find illegality in the award directions.
This Kerala High Court judgment arises from a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 1356 of 2014) filed by the legal heirs of a deceased claimant challenging an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda (OP(MV) No.1089/2009). The original petition sought compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision on 21.02.2009, involving a car owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The Tribunal held the accident caused by negligence of the 2nd respondent and that the insurer was liable, with liberty to recover after satisfying the award. It awarded Rs.82,881 with interest at 7.5% and directed deposit by the insurer, subject to recovery from the owners and driver. The appeal, filed by appellants who are the heirs of the deceased, contends that compensation is inadequate, the monthly income and disability percentage are too low, and that functional disability due to ataxia should be considered given the disability certificate Ext.A5 and Ext.A4, including a Glasgow Coma Scale reading. The High Court reconsiders the disability and income in light of Ramachandrappa (2011) and Syed Sadiq (2014), and the government guidelines on ataxia under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and related notifications. It computes a revised disability at 40% and monthly income at Rs.7,000, leading to an enhanced compensation and a further Rs.15,000 for pain and suffering, plus an additional Rs.3,70,500, to be deposited with interest and recoverable from respondents. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
The petitioner, Suresh Babu, is the third accused in CC No.102/2021 arising from Crime No.150/2020 of Valapattanam Police Station. The charge sheetalleged offences under Section 120B, 406, and 420 read with Section 34 IPC, involving alleged misappropriation and cheating in a business transaction linked to SB Developers. The petitioner moved a Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution, a fact supported by an affidavit from the victim who also stated there was no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor reserved judgment but acknowledged the settlement. Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) (5) SCC 688 and the lines of Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the High Court held that quashing non‑compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC is permissible where the dispute is private, the entire dispute is resolved, and the offences are not of a heinous or serious character; the court emphasized evaluating the nature of the injury, the evidence, and antecedents and conduct of the accused. After assessing the records, the court concluded the dispute is private and the settlement genuine, quashing further proceedings against the petitioner in CC 102/2021.
Mani A. and others (including a minor, represented by his father) approach MACA No. 1783 of 2017 against the MACT Kollam award in OP(MV) No.1623/2014, arising from the death of Mohammed Niaz in a 2014 accident. The appellants challenge the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 10,34,000, arguing that the notional income of the deceased was fixed too low at Rs. 6,000 per month despite his alleged status as a businessman, and that compensation under the heads Loss of Consortium and Loss of Estate was improperly omitted. The insurer contends that, given the accident year and lack of income proof, the Tribunal rightly fixed Rs.6,000 and that certain heads, such as Funeral Expenses, exceed permissible amounts, with the Tribunal having already disbursed more than required under some heads. The High Court undertakes a detailed appraisal of the evidence, invoking Ramachandrappa, Pranay Sethi, Sarla Verma and Satinder Kaur to recalibrate the compensation. It determines that the notional income should be Rs. 9,500 per month with 40% future prospects, considering the deceased’s age at the time of death. Consequently, the Court revises the Dependency component to Rs. 14,36,400, reduces Funeral Expenses to Rs. 15,000, and deletes Loss of Love and Affection and Future Prospects. It nonetheless awards Rs. 80,000 for Loss of Consortium and Rs. 15,000 for Loss of Estate, while keeping other heads intact. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 9% interest from the claim date and to bear proportionate costs.
CRL. R.P. No.1812 of 2007 This is a criminal revision petition filed by Rajamma, the accused, challenging the conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara, and confirmed on appeal by the Fast Track Court. The prosecution alleged possession of 10 litres of arrack in a gunny bag near the Sub-Registrar Office at Balaramapuram on 13.02.1997, leading to registration of crime No.19/97. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced her to six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.25,000, with a default term of three months. On revision, arguments centered on alleged procedural and evidentiary gaps: failure to produce arrest memo/intimation, unexplained delay in producing the thondi (sample) articles (four days), lack of specimen seals on the mahazar, absence of a forwarding note, and the fact that the samples were drawn by the court rather than police/Excise officials. The petitioner pointed to multiple precedents stressing strict compliance with arrest procedures, chain of custody, and sample handling. The High Court, citing Basu and several Kerala and Supreme Court decisions, found these deficiencies fatal to the prosecution’s case, and ultimately allowed the revision petition, acquitting the accused and cancelling bail bonds. The order emphasizes the necessity of proper arrest documentation, sampling procedures, and chain of custody for contraband seized under the Abkari Act.
This is a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Kerala High Court by accused Nos. 1–3 in Crime No. 901/2021 of Njarakkal Police Station, Ernakulam, registered under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC. The petition seeks anticipatory bail after the Sessions Court rejected the prayer, noting that the applicant must show a reason to believe they may be arrested and that mere fear is insufficient. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the prosecution and argued that further investigation was required, and granting bail could impede it. The High Court examined the FIR, the FIS supplied by the defacto complainant, and the police report, which revealed allegations of physical violence and alleged misappropriation of gold ornaments following the marriage on 27.12.2020. While there were no hospitalisations or injuries, the court found prima facie materials capable of attracting Section 498A and recognised the need for continued investigation. Citing Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and subsequent guidelines, the court acknowledged the risk of arrest and the possibility of the accused going abroad, but also applied the principle that arrest should not be unduly delayed if the materials do not conclusively establish the offence. Balancing these factors, the High Court held that there is substance in the apprehension of arrest and granted pre-arrest bail to accused Nos. 1–3 on conditions including bond, sureties, appearance, cooperation with investigation, no tampering, and passport surrender where applicable.
This High Court of Kerala, in MACA No. 2509 of 2014, heard an appeal against an MACT Kozhikode award for injuries sustained in a 30.01.2002 accident where the appellant, Siddique, was a pillion rider on a motorcycle; the car KL12/A-2827 allegedly struck him, with the insurers contesting negligence. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held the driver negligent and awarded Rs. 2,97,731 in total compensation. The appellant challenged the quantum, arguing that the Tribunal erred in fixing a low notional income, failing to properly account for future prospects and disability, and inadequately compensating heads like pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and bystander expenses. Citing Ramachandrappa, the appellant urged a higher notional income rather than the Tribunal’s Rs. 1,500 per month. The High Court, however, re-evaluated the income, noting the appellant is a driver by profession and fixing the notional monthly income at Rs. 4,500, relying on the Ramachandrappa framework. It also applied the Pranay Sethi framework to permit 40% future prospects and Sarla Verma’s multiplier of 18, while recognizing 65% permanent disability. The court recalculated the loss of earnings, future earning power, and other heads, elevating the overall compensation to Rs. 11,48,151, and partially allowed the appeal. The insurer is ordered to deposit this amount with 8% interest from the petition date, within two months, for distribution to the petitioner through the Tribunal.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5277 OF 2025 This Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) concerns Muhammed Nadeem, accused in Crime No. 475/2025 of Kattakkada Police Station for offences under Sections 118(1) and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The prosecution case is that on 31 March 2025, while the defacto complainant and his son were travelling by motorcycle, the accused allegedly threw a filled beer bottle from in front of Abhirami Bar, Kattakada, which hit the defacto complainant’s right leg; a second bottle shattered against the metre board, and glass shards caused injuries to both the complainant and his son. The petitioner submits he has been in custody since 03 April 2025 and is willing to comply with stringent bail conditions; he contends the incident did not occur as alleged and he has no involvement. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing serious charges and criminal antecedents in another case. The court, acknowledging the seriousness but applying the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, cites Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and allows bail with conditions. The order notes the Anzar Azeez principle as applicable and directs bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, cooperation with investigation, no travel abroad, and no reoffending, with a provision to cancel bail on violation. The decision is confined to the bail issue only.
BAIL APPL. NOS. 4866 OF 2025 AND 4870 OF 2025 These bail applications arise from two offences under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, involving Shaji alias Shajahen, a 21-year-old accused, against whom Crime Nos. 1271/2024 and 1273/2024 were registered at Neyyattinkara Police Station. The cases allege sexual offences against minors: in Crime No.1271/2024 the petitioner allegedly caressed a minor boy and inserted his penis into the boy's anus on multiple occasions; in Crime No.1273/2024 he allegedly caught hold of the shoulder of a 9-year-old girl and caressed her breast on 13.9.2024. The accused has been in custody since 12.10.2024, and the petitioner claims the allegations are false and that he suffers from 51% intellectual disability (certificate Annexure-III). The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, contending the offenses are heinous and the case deserves continued custody. The court observed that while the allegations are serious, indefinite incarceration is unwarranted since final reports are filed. Relying on established bail jurisprudence— including Chidambaram. P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, Enforcement decisions and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala—the court held that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, but with stringent conditions. Accordingly, bail was granted with conditions such as bond Rs.50,000, two solvent sureties (one the mother), appearance before IO, no leaving the country, no commission of similar offences, and possible revocation for violation, to ensure fair trial.
This is a bail application filed by the sole accused Sreekumar in Crime No.583/2025 of Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam, under sections 138 and 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (2023) and section 92(b) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, currently before a High Court in Kerala. The petitioner contends that the alleged incident did not occur as described and asserts his willingness to comply with stringent bail conditions. He has been in custody since 27 March 2025. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposes bail, citing the serious nature of the offences and the potential risk to the victim. The court recalls the longstanding principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, and also draws on Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement for guiding bail norms. After considering the facts, the court concludes that bail can be granted with stringent conditions, recognizing the need to balance fair trial rights with public interest. Accordingly, it grants bail on specified conditions, including a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the investigating officer, non-extraneous travel, non-commission of similar offences, and other statutory safeguards, while reaffirming the applicability of Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala as a governing principle.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5222 OF 2025 This bail petition, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, concerns Muhammed Rafi, the accused in Crime No. 205/2025 of Bekal Police Station, Kasaragod. The petitioner challenges the earlier order in Bail Application No. 3346 of 2025 denying bail. The prosecution alleges offences under sections 126(2), 118(1), 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha. The prosecution case alleges that on 19 February 2025, Muhammad Kunhi, the petitioner’s elder brother, was travelling on a motorcycle when a white I-10 car, with accused persons inside, allegedly struck his motorcycle and attempted to assault him with an iron rod, resulting in serious injuries. The petitioner has been in custody since 20 February 2025. The court heard arguments from the petitioner’s counsel, the victim’s counsel, and the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that indefinite incarceration is unwarranted; he is prepared to accept reasonable conditions and proposed restricting the petitioner’s movements within Bekal jurisdiction for two months. The victim’s counsel and the Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing the victim’s bedridden state and serious injuries. Relying on precedents, the court reaffirmed the maxim that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and ultimately granted bail with conditions, balancing the victim’s safety with the accused’s right to liberty.
The batch of writ petitions concerns KSRTC provisional empanelled employees who were regularised under a bipartite settlement and government orders, and later faced termination or denial of pensionary benefits on the ground that they did not satisfy the conditions for regularisation as laid down by government orders and, crucially, by Supreme Court judgments. The Court traces the genesis to a bipartite Pay Revision agreement (2008) and the Government orders dated 22.12.2011 (G.O.78/2011) and 21.11.2013 (G.O.105/2013), which collectively introduced a twin condition for regularisation: ten years of service as on 21.12.2011 and, as clarified later, 120 days of duty per year. The petitioners argue that many had obtained regularisation through court judgments and that KSRTC was privileged to rely on those adjudications; they contend termination without hearing is illegal and violative of natural justice. The respondents argue that the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No.4435–4438/2017 held that government-imposed conditions could apply to regularisation and that the High Court’s earlier view (Suresh Kumar) was overruled, making the 120 days condition retrospective. The judgment addresses whether the constitutional binding effect of the Supreme Court’s order overrides prior judgments and what process KSRTC must follow before terminating or regularising. It consolidates 34 petitions and directs a hearing process with timelines, potentially restoring regularisation if criteria are shown to be met, or permitting termination with pension rights for those already superannuated.
The petitioners, Renchu Joseph and Jobin Pichanattu James, petitioned the Kerala High Court under Article 226 seeking a direction to permit online or video-conferencing solemnization of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, due to personal and work commitments that would prevent physical appearance before the Marriage Registrar. An earlier application for a notice of intended marriage (18.01.2023) and subsequent dates for solemnization (notably 24.02.2023) are discussed, with the first petitioner’s job requirement to report to Saudi Arabia on 10.02.2023. The respondent registry insisted on personal appearance. The Court relies on a Division Bench decision in Arun R.K. and anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors (2023(1) KLJ 758 = 2023 SCC Online Ker. 817), which held that marriages under the Act can be solemnized online, considering the Act, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and related jurisprudence. The State’s counsel argued the Act’s peremptory nature requiring personal appearance. After examining submissions, the Judge endorses the Arun R.K. ruling, citing statutory interpretation principles from State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai and the IT Act, and directs that online solemnization be allowed, with formalities such as witness identification and documentation to be satisfied. The writ petition is disposed of with the petitioners directed to comply with the cited judgment, and the order is made absolute.
This is a High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, OP(C) No. 352 of 2023, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging Ext P1 in IA No.2/2022 in OS No.1151/2013 before the Second Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam. The petitioner Swapna, plaintiff in the suit, sought to amend the plaint (Ext P3) to declare title over plaint ‘A’ schedule property and to fix a boundary between ‘A’ and ‘C’ schedule properties, in addition to the existing prayers for a mandatory injunction to remove pillars and a permanent prohibitory injunction to protect peaceful possession of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule lands. The court below dismissed Ext P3, holding that the proposed amendment would alter the suit’s nature and that the issues of title and boundary had already been adjudicated in OS 1100/2013, with RSA No.8/2020 pending. The petitioner argued that the amendment is within time and would not prejudice the respondent, citing the Supreme Court’s liberal approach to pleadings amendments in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders (2022) for guidance that amendments should be liberally allowed unless barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC or time. The judge held that the amendment should be permitted to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and that the merits of the amended pleadings will be decided later. Invoking Article 227, Ext P1 was set aside, Ext P3 allowed, and directions issued for amendment and expedited disposal of OS 1151/2013.
