IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17889 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.302/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.S.DAMODARAN,AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUKUNJU,MARUTHUVELIL,VADAKKECHERUVIL, MURIYANNOOR MURI,THOTTAPUZHASSSERY VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. MADHU,AGED 39 YEARS,S/O.CHELLAMMA, KAVUMKOTTU VEETTIL,KURIYANNOOR MURI, THOTTUPUZHASSERY VILLAGE,THIRUVALLA TALUK. 2. AMBIKA,AGED 32 YEARS,W/O.MADHU, KAVUMKOTTU VEETTIL,KURIYANNOOR MURI, THOTTUPUZHASSERY VILLAGE,THIRUVALLA VILLAGE. 3. CHELLAMMA,AGED 59 YEARS,KAVUMKOTTU VEETTIL, KURIYANNOOR MURI,THOTTAPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. 4. CHACKO VARGHESE,AGED 64 YEARS,MALAYIL VEETTIL,KURIYANNOOR MURI,THOTTAPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.17889 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ calling for records relating to Exhibit P4 and quash the same as illegal. ii) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ calling for records relating to allowing Exhibit P3 application. iii) To allow this writ petition.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.NO.302/2004 pending on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla. Suit was one for declaration of right of easement over a pathway and for consequential injunction. After completion of the steps, case was included in the special list for trial. Petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for adjournment stating that his counsel is laid up and the court below adjourned the case for trial for a week. Thereafter petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint and another for removal of the case from the list. Both applications were resisted by the defendants filing written objections. The learned Munsiff after considering W.P.(C).No.17889 of 2009 - O 2 the merits of those applications dismissed them by a common order, copy of which is produced as Ext.P4. Impeaching the correctness and propriety of Ext.P4 order, this writ petition is filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Ext.P3 is the copy of the application moved by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint. Perusing Ext.P4 order with reference to Ext.P3 application, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the court below in dismissing the applications for amendment and for removal of the case from the list. In case the petitioner/plaintiff finds the suit is likely to fail on account of a formal defect in including essential pleadings in the plaint, it is open to the plaintiff to seek withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. If any such application is filed, the learned Munsiff shall consider it and pass appropriate orders. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-