Amendments Not Required For Adjudication Of Real Issues Between Parties Ought Not To Be Allowed: Kerala High Court

Justice C. Jayachandran noted that the amendment sought was belated also.

“The title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property has not so far been challenged by the respondents, or for that matter by anybody else, before any forum. Nor has the respondents preferred any counter claim in that regard. Therefore, an amendment, seeking to incorporate facts pertaining to the title of the plaintiff, is not going to serve any useful purpose. It cannot be said that such averments are required for the adjudication of the real issue in controversy by and between the parties, having regard to the scope of the reliefs sought for in the suit. In such circumstances, the amendment sought for ought not to have been allowed. Moreover, the amendment sought for is belated as well.”

The petitioner-plaintiff approached the Court challenging the amendment application preferred by the respondents which was allowed by the Magistrate. The plaintiff amendment sought by the respondents was allowed with a cryptic order merely by stating that the Court was satisfied that the amendment was necessary and that the application for amendment can be filed at any stage. The plaintiff also alleged that the amendment sought to be incorporated was not at all necessary for adjudicating the dispute between the parties in the suit.

The Court noted that the suit was filed for fixation of boundary and injunction from trespass. The respondents have sought amendments which were pertaining to the title of the plaint schedule property which was not challenged in the suit. The Court noted that the title of the plaintiff had not so far challenged by anyone before any forum. It also noted that the respondents have not filed any counter claim challenging the title of the plaintiff. It thus noted that the amendments sought to be incorporated were not necessary for adjudication of the real issues between the parties and were also outside the scope of the reliefs sought in the suit.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the original petition and dismissed the order of the Magistrate that allowed the amendments sought by the respondents.

Counsel for the petitioner: Advocate S Nikhil Sankar

Counsel for the respondents: Advocates Biju Balakrishnan V.S.Rakhee, K.J.Gisha, Ajmal P., Yrishika R., Akshaya S.Nair

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 670

Case title: Santhosh Kumar P M v John M T

Case number: OP(C) NO. 2152 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment