IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 OP(C).No. 2805 of 2011(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/08/2011 IN IA.1615/2011 IN OS.28/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ NARAYANANKUTTY GUPTAN,AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.POOKKOTTIL VADEKKARA KUNJU MANNADIAR, KATTUKULAM AMSOM,MANGALAMKUNNU DESOM, OTTAPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. JANAKI AMMA,AGED 55 YEARS, D/O.LATE KANHIRAMPARA MALATHI AMMA, W/O.LATE MELEPARAMBOTTIL RAMANKUTTY NAIR, KATTUKULAM AMSOM,MANGALAMKUNNU DESOM,OTTAPALAM-679101 2. ACHUTHANKUTTY NAIR,S/O.MALATHI AMMA, 54 YEARS,RESIDING AT --DO-- 3. BHASKARAN NAIR,S/O MALATHI AMMA,53 YEARS RESIDING AT --DO-- 4. INDIRA,D/O.MALATHI AMMA,AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT -- DO-- 5. RAJAN,S/O.MALATHI AMMA,45 YEARS, RESIDING AT --DO-- ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R4 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 2805 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.28 OF 2007 ON the FILE OF THE MUNSIFFS' COURT, OTTAPALAM EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANYING the APPLICATION IN I.A.NO.1615OF 2011 EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 05.08.2011 IN I.A.NO.1615OF 2011 EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE BASIX TAX REGISTER EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DTD 08.03.2006 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, J. ========================= O.P(C).No.2805 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this 31st day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 are served by affixture. Second respondent is served directly. Fourth respondent appears through counsel. Since it is submitted by both sides that all the respondents have filed a joint written statement through the same counsel, a further notice to respondents 1, 3 and 5 is not required. 2. Plaintiff in O.S.No.28 of 2007 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Ottappalam is the petitioner, challenging Ext.P3, order refusing amendment of plaint to correct one of the old survey numbers in the plaint schedule. Petitioner filed the suit for mandatory/prohibitory injunction and alternatively, for recovery of damages. According to the petitioner, he has correctly shown the suit property in the plaint schedule by description and boundaries but, there happened to be a mistake in one of the old survey numbers. That was sought to be corrected which learned Munsiff has disallowed. It is requested that petitioner may be permitted to amend the suit suitably. 3. Learned counsel for fourth respondent has contended that petitioner had sufficient time to seek amendment of the plaint even after the Advocate Commissioner submitted report and plan and now the suit is posted for trial in the list on 01.09.2011. 4. True that the application is seen filed a bit belated but, examination of witnesses has not commenced. I must also look into the nature of the request made by petitioner. In the plaint schedule, the old survey number of the property is mentioned as 26/1 and 26/2 and the re-survey as 72/3. Ext.P4 would show that the corresponding old survey numbers of re-survey No.72/3 are 26/1pt and 25/3pt. Instead of that what is mentioned in the plaint schedule as old survey Nos. is 26/1 and 26/2. Now, petitioner wants old survey No.26/2 to be as corrected as 25/3pt. I am not inclined to think that the amendment would change the character of the suit. Hence I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly this original petition is allowed. Ext.P3, order is set aside and I.A.No.1615 of 2011 will stand allowed. Petitioner shall carry out correction in the schedule to the plaint within a week from this day. Learned Munsiff shall give respondents opportunity to file additional written statement if any, on the amendment being carried out. Sd/- THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/-