IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23634 of 2008(L) ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/07/2008 IN IA 2606/08 IN OS.134/2001 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I .................... PETITIONER : ---------------- P.MOIDEENKOYA, S/O.MAMMED KOYA KARANNOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE, GENERAL SECRETARY, ISSATHUL ISLAM COMMITTEE, ERANHIKKAL. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.ANTONY RESPONDENT : ----------------- C.K.MOOSAKOYA, S/O.ABU HAJI, EDIYARAMBATH HOUSE, ERANHIKKAL PO, KARANNOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 23634 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P4 order passed by learned Munsiff in I.A.2602 of 2008 in O.S.134 of 2001. I.A.2602 of 2008 is an application for amendment of the plaint filed by petitioner after evidence in the case was recorded. Learned Munsiff dismissed it under Ext.P4 order. 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that the amendment sought for is only to correct the survey number of the plaint schedule property in accordance with the report submitted by Commissioner and therefore learned Munsiff should have allowed the application. Ext.P3 affidavit does not show why the application was not moved prior to the commencement of the trial as mandated under proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code. As petitioner did not mention anything to satisfy the proviso to Rule 17, I do not find any illegality or irregularity, warranting interference in Ext.P4 order. Petitioner is entitled to challenge the order along with the final judgment, if it goes against him. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-