Case Summary
Sushama A.D. is the plaintiff seeking to amend the plaint in her ongoing suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. The defendants are state entities accused of encroaching on the plaintiff's property.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
Amendment of plaint allowed.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court allowed the amendment of the plaint to include claims for mandatory injunction and compensation, while permitting the defendants to challenge the maintainability of the suit.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The amendments are necessary for proper determination of issues and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The amendments are necessary for proper determination of issues and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The amendments are necessary for proper determination of issues and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The amendments are necessary for proper determination of issues and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Supporting Evidence
The learned counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that the amendments that are sought for in the petition at hand is necessary for the proper determination of the issues as between the parties...
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, IA stands allowed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Sushama A.D.
- Party Age
- 65
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- The State of Kerala
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- The District Collector, Ernakulam District
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- The Special Tahasildar (L.A)
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- The Executive Engineer
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Maradu Municipality
- Relation
- Represented by
Plaintiffs Documents
Not available
Defendants Documents
Not available
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Eldho Cherian
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- V. A Johnson
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Hari P. Nair
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Saju Waheb
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Sachin Jacob
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sindhu B.R
- Appearance Type
- Government Pleader
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Shahul Hameed Moopan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Mandatory Injunction
Outcome:
Partly Granted
Description:
Amendment to incorporate relief of mandatory injunction and compensation.
Evidence:
I am of the opinion, in the facts of the case, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and as the amendments sought to be incorporated is one that is directly linked to the prayer and pleadings made out in the suit originally, that a liberal approach can be taken in the matter of allowing this amendment.
Relief Type:
Compensation
Outcome:
Partly Granted
Description:
Amendment to incorporate relief of mandatory injunction and compensation.
Evidence:
I am of the opinion, in the facts of the case, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and as the amendments sought to be incorporated is one that is directly linked to the prayer and pleadings made out in the suit originally, that a liberal approach can be taken in the matter of allowing this amendment.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
The commission report filed on 17.03.2023 identifies encroachment by the defendants on the plaintiff's property.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
N/A
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Sushama A.D. vs The State of Kerala et al regarding amendment of plaint.
Case Code Year
Case between Sushama A.D. vs The State of Kerala et al regarding amendment of plaint.