All that the plaintiffs wanted was to clarify the description of the plaint schedule property by incorporating the following:-
“Along with common area and common passage as per the approved plan in MOP 151/95 dated 23.5.1995 issued by the Cochin Corporation”.
The purpose of the amendment is only to make it clear that the plaint schedule property includes also the common area and the common passage.
2. The plaintiffs have stated in the affidavit accompanying the application for amendment that the omission to specify the above was due to oversight. I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have satisfied the conditions laid down in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the instant case. The defendants are however free to file an additional written statement to the amended plaint even after the plaint schedule property is clarified.
O.P.(C) No. 1575 of 2014 2
3. An Advocate Commissioner was deputed by consent by this Court during the pendency of this Original Petition. This was done in order to give a quietus to the issue even though the parties continue to be warring sections. The acceptability or otherwise of the report filed by Sri. V. Premchand, Advocate Commissioner can also be considered by the court below where the suit is pending.
4. The impugned order disallowing amendment is set aside and I.A. No. 6236/2013 in O.S. 412/2012 on the file of the court of the Principal Munsiff of Ernakulam is allowed. The court below is directed to dispose of the suit finally on or before 31.01.2015 in the circumstances.
The Original Petition is disposed of.
V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS