IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8041 of 2008(G) ------------------------- OS.311/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ M.J.ALICE JOSEPH D/O.JENOVA,KALAPPURAYAKKAL HOUSE, EDAMON P.O.,EDAMON SATHRAM, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SMT.V.DEEPA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. M.J.ROSAMMA,GREEN VILLA, EDAMON P.O.,EDAMON,PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 2. M.J.MARYKUTTY,KAITHAPPUZHA VEEDU KAKKANADU,KAYAMKULAM. 3. M.J.ELIZABETH,ARAKKATTIL VEEDU, AMALAGIRI P.O.,,KOTTAYAM. 4. M.J.SELIN,KARIYADIYIL HOUSE PERINGALA P.O.,KAYAMKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8041 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Punalur in I.A.No.1690/07 in O.S.No.311/05. It was an application filed for the amendment of the plaint. The court below dismissed it on the ground that it is belated and evidence is recorded and therefore, since the application is filed after the commencement of trial amendment has to be dismissed. 2. I had gone through the material papers in the case. There are two items of properties which are shown as A and B schedule in the plaint. Now the plaintiff wants to amend it as items 1 and 2. It is submitted by him that by an omission instead of considering both the items of property only one item is valued and the second item having an extent of 3.25 cents is not valued. The suit is for a declaration under Section 257 of CF Act and the plaintiff would contend that the property does not fetch any income and so the minimum valuation of Rs.1,000/- has to be shown for item 2 (B schedule in the original plaint). The court WPC8041/2008 2 below has dismissed the application as highly belated. 3. I am conscious of the fact that under the amended Civil Procedure Code, amendment is not to be entertained unless there are specific reasons after the trial has commenced. But here is a case where the registry of the court should have found out the mistake even at the inspection of the plaint and it is the mistake committed by the staff of the court and the court has numbered the plaint without having a valuation for an item of the property against which relief is claimed. So it is imperative to have the correction done. The other correction is only with respect to the numbers as 1 and 2 instead of A and B. 4. Therefore, I direct the court below to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in the amendment application after hearing both sides. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the court below is to consider the amendment application afresh. The writ petition is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl