IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34846 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.430/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM .................... PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------- 1. THOMAS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O CHACKO, OLIYAMPLAVIL HOUSE, NJEEZHOOR KARA, NJEEZHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. 2. MATHAI, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O CHACKO, PALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, DO. DO. 3. VARKEY, S/O CHAKCO, AGED 77 YEARS, PULICKATHADATHIL, DO KARA, DO VILLAGE. 4. ALEYKUTTY, W/O KUNJIKKA, AGED 57 YEARS, PALAKUNNEL HOUSE, ELANJI KARA AND VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE JOSEPH (ITTANKULANGARA) RESPONDENTS/ PLAINTIFFS: ------------------------- 1. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDERS A) REV.NESON CHACKO,TREASURER, MADYAKERALA DIOCESE,KATHREEDAL ROAD, KOTTAYAM. B) REV.T.O.OMMEN, SECRETARY, MADYA KERALA DIOCESE,KATHREEDAL ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 2. ST.MATHEW C.S.I.CHURCH, NJEEZHOOR REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEES A) JOSEPH, S/O.YOUHANNAN, PATHIEJERRIL,NJEEZHOOR KARA, NJEEZHOOR VILLAGE. B)CHERIAN, S/O.YOHANNAN,PATTARUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, NJEEZHOOR KARA, NJEEZHOOR VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34846 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.430 of 1996 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Vaikom. The above suit is filed by the respondents as plaintiffs seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction. Petitioners/defendants have resisted the suit by filing written statement. Previously, after trial the suit had been dismissed against which the respondents/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the District Court, Kottayam. Setting aside the dismissal of the suit the case was remitted for fresh disposal directing to provide an opportunity to the plaintiffs to take out a commission to locate and identify the plaint properties. Pursuant to remand on the application moved by the plaintiffs an advocate commissioner was deputed. After local inspection with the assistance of the surveyor and measuring out the properties, he filed a report and plan. P8 is the copy of the report and plan. Petitioners/defendants have serious objections to that report and they sought for setting aside the report and plan. Ext.P9 is the W.P.(C).No.34846 of 2009 - O 2 copy of the objections so filed by the petitioners/defendants. Learned Munsiff ordered for consideration of the objections canvassed at the trial of the suit. Plaintiff at that stage moved an application for amending the plaint. Ext.P10 is the copy of that application which was objected to by the petitioners/defendants by Ext.P11 objections. After hearing both sides the learned Munsiff allowed Ext.P1o amendment application vide Ext.P13 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P13 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to the exhibits tendered with the writ petition, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. 3. The challenge raised in the writ petition is against Ext.P13 order passed by the learned Munsiff allowing Ext.P10 application for amendment filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Perusing Ext.P10 application, I find the only amendment sought W.P.(C).No.34846 of 2009 - O 3 for was correction as to the location of the defendants’ property from that of the property scheduled in the plaint and also in correcting the extent of the property of item No.1 in tune with the report prepared by the commissioner. Plaintiffs wanted to correct the previous statement made in the plaint that the property of the defendants stated as on the 'northern side' to be rectified as 'western side' and also a correction in the survey number of item No.1 property and also its extent. The extent previously stated as 42 cents was sought to be corrected, limiting it to 38.225 cents. Learned Munsiff after considering the nature of the amendment sought for was satisfied that the proposed amendment has to be allowed for a fair and proper disposal of the suit on merits. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in Ext.P13 order passed by the learned Munsiff allowing the amendment application. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-