Under challenge is Ext.P6 order whereby the lower court allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiff. The petitioners before this Court are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit namely, O.S.No.19/2013 of Sub Court, Karunagappally. The suit was one for mandatory and prohibitory injunction. 2. When O.S.No.19/2013 was listed for trial, the plaintiff came up with an application to amend the plaint. It was posted for objections. The petitioners did file their objections. But since it was initially found that there was some defect in the objection, they sought to withdraw the objection filed by them and replace it by another petition which is marked as Ext.P5 in this case. On the date of hearing of the petition, it so happened that the petitioners' counsel could not be present at the time when the case was called though he was present before the court in the morning. The court, setting the petitioners ex parte for the purpose of amendment application, allowed the petition.
O.P.(C) No.2602/2014 2
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that it was without taking their objections and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners that the order was passed and that has caused prejudice to the petitioners. Probably, in the absence of the petitioners' counsel, the court below could have at least observed that there was appearance for the petitioners in the morning and could have narrated the nature of objections in the petition.
4. Whatever that be, on going through the amendment, it can be seen that the amendment sought for does not prejudicially affect the rights of the petitioners herein nor is the nature of the suit sought to be changed. It is only an insignificant correction which does not affect the merits of the case at all.
5. Viewed from that angle, this Court feels that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order though it may not be proper for the court to set the petitioners ex parte.
This petition is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
smp P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE