Aggrieved by an order whereby the amendment sought for was declined, the plaintiff before the court below in O.S. No.442/2011 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara is before this court.
2. The suit is one for injunction. The property came to the possession of the plaintiff as per document No.380/2005. The suit was in respect of property covered by document No.380/2005 but showing the schedule of property mistakenly as contained in document No.2275/1957. The plaintiff who found out the mistake sought to correct the mistake bring it in the plaint in tune with the content of document No.380/05. That document was already before the court. There were other amendments also sought for, which were allowed. Amendment to the schedule sought for to correct in terms of document No.380/05 was declined holding that it would change the nature of the suit.
3. It is extremely difficult to understand the reasoning given by the court below. The amendment sought for can O.P.(C) No.4062/2013 2 neither change the nature of the suit or no cause of action. Moreover, the plaintiff wanted to amend the schedule to bring it in tune with his document of title.
4. It must be noticed here that the document is already before the court when amendment sought for and it is not a new invention or attempt to change the property and right to the plaintiff's claim based on document No.380/05.
In the light of the above facts, the court below was clearly in error in declining the prayer No.4 in I.A. No.3569/2013 in O.S. No.442/2011. Hence, the order passed in respect of that prayer is set aside and that prayer to amend the plaint also stands allowed.
Sd/-
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.
//true copy// St/-
P.S. TO JUDGE