IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 FAO.No. 67 of 2004() ---------------------------- AS.86/1998 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD OS.112/1994 of MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ---------------------- 1. MUHAMMED IBRAHIM, S/O. MEDAR RAWTHER, BANK ROAD, PUTHIYANKAM AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. 2. MUSTERI IBRAHIM W/O. MUHAMMED IBRAHIM, BANK ROAD, PUTHIYANKAM AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS: APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------ NIRMALA, D/O. BALAKRISHNAN AND W/O. BHAGAWAL DAS, THOLAMPUZHA, KAVASSERY AMSOM, PALAKKAD, ALATHUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.H.SIVARAMAN - R1 SRI.S.M.UNNIKRISHNAN - R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== FAO No.67 OF 2004 ===================== Dated this the 16th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the II Addl. District Court, Palakkad in A.S.No.86 of 1998. The suit is one for recovery of possession and also for a mandatory injunction. A perusal of the trial court's judgment would reveal that the said court was dissatisfied with the identification of the property and it observed that the property has not been identified. The appellate court on appeal found that the identification of the property is necessary with respect to the documents involved in the case and also permitted the appellant therein to correct the mistakes seeking leave of the court. Ultimately the appellate court disposed of the appeal holding that an opportunity has to be given to amend the pleadings, adduce fresh evidence and Commissioner's report will be remitted. An opportunity to amend the pleadings does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that it must be contrary to the law. If it is within the para meters of the law and if it is really necessary to resolve the dispute between the parties even if it is a belated one, it has to be considered and allowed. The change of character FAO 67/2004 -:2:- of the suit, etc. is to be considered by the same court where the matter is pending. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this case. Therefore FAO fails and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-