IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30884 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.411/2008 of PRL.M.C., KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.K.SREEDHARAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, KIZHAKETHAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMBALAMUGAL. 2. K.K.RAVI, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, KIZHAKETHAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAVANAKKADU. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NANDAKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, PAZHANGADU HOUSE, EDAVANAKKADU. PIN – 682 502 2. VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.NANDAKUMAR, PAZHANGADU HOUSE, EDAVANAKKADU. PIN – 682 502 ADV. SRI.M.T.BALAN FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.30884/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF PLAINT O.S.NO.411 OF 2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 18.9.2009. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT DATED 12.10.2009. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2009 IN I.A.1918/2009 IN O.S.411/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.30884 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.411 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kochi. Suit is one for a perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from increasing the width of plaint B schedule property trespassing upon plaint A schedule property. The respondents in the petition are the defendants in the suit. Plaintiffs claimed possession over ten cents of land described as A schedule. From A schedule property, five feet width had been given for the formation of B schedule property, was the case pleaded in the plaint. Plaint B schedule is described as a pathway having a width of 5 feet, carved out from A schedule, lying on the northern end of that property in east west direction. At the instance of the defendants, an Advocate Commissioner conducted a local inspection and filed a report. When the Commissioner conducted survey measurements, it WPC.30884/09 2 was found that the area of the property taken from A schedule for the formation of the pathway was only 0.568 cents. In the light of that report, the plaintiffs sought for an amendment for substitution of the words '5 feet' as '0.568 cents', wherever it is stated so in the plaint. The application was objected to by the defendants. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, dismissed the amendment application vide Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 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 learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that the amendment has become necessary in view of the materials collected by the Advocate Commissioner after conducting of survey measurements, and the court below went wrong in disallowing the amendment application. The very basis of the plaintiffs case, as seen from Ext.P1 plaint, is that the entire B schedule property has been carved out of A schedule property with a width of 5 feet. Subsequent to the commission report, WPC.30884/09 3 the ingenious attempt of the plaintiffs to correct the word 5 feet wherever it occur, thereby, seeking for amendment of the plaint B schedule description itself, indicate that there is no merit in the application for amendment and what was intended is retracting of from the specific admission made in the plaint in respect of B schedule way. The court below is perfectly justified in turning down the amendment sought for. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp