IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 4119 of 2011(O) ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 4949/2011 & IA 5106/2011 IN OS.835/2010 of PRL.M.C., KOLLAM ................... PETITIONER(S) / 1ST PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------------- SARALA DEVI, AGED 72 YEARS, D/O. SAROJINI AMMA, SAYANTHAM, SAKTHIKULANGARA CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM - 691 581. BY ADV. SRI.THYPARAMBIL THOMAS THOMAS RESPONDENT(S) / DEFENDANTS 1-4 AND PLAINTIFFS 2 TO 4: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BALAGOPA PRASAD, AGED 60 YEARS, NEDIYAZHATH HOUSE, PUTHUKADU P.O., CHAVARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM - 691 583 2. GOPINATHAN PILLAI, AGED 78, PIRAVOOR, SAKTHIKULANGARA CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA P.O., KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM - 691 581. 3. MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 50, S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, THAZHATHUNALLOOR, KRISTURAJ JUNCTION, KUNDARA CHERRY, KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 501. 4. RAJALEKSHMI, AGED 65 YEARS, C/O. BALAGOPA PRASAD, NEDIYAZHATH HOUSE, PUTHUKADU P.O., CHAVARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM - 691 583. VPV OPCNO.4119/2011 5. AMBIKA DEVI, AGED 62 YEARS, D/O. SAROJINI AMMA, SAYANTHAM, SAKTHIKULANGARA CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM - 691 581. 6. SYAMA KUMARI, AGED 70 YEARS, PAZHAVARATHU HOUSE, ANAYADI DESOM, SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUR TAHSIL, KOLLAM - 690 561. 7. PREMACHANDRAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. K. KESAVA PILLAI, NADUTHALA MURI, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM - 691 581. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VPV OPCNO.4119/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SUIT O.S.835/2010 BEFORE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 & 4 AND 2 & 3 IN O.S. 835/2010. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.4949/2011 IN O.S.835/2010 DATED 26.11.2011. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER I.A.4949/2011 DATED 1.12.2011. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT/2ND PLAINTIFF DATED 21.11.2011. EXT.P6: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT OF THE PLAINT SCHEDULED PROPERTY. EXT.P7: COPY OF I.A. 5106/2011 DATED 3.12.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE VPV THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.4119 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T First plaintiff in O.S. No.838 of 2010 of the court of learned Munsiff, Kollam is aggrieved by Ext.P4, order refusing amendment of plaint after evidence in the case was closed. 2. Petitioner and others sued respondents 1 to 4 for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain them and their men from causing nuisance and interruption to the management of family temple in the suit property and for other reliefs. In the plaint schedule the suit property is described as comprised in Sy. No.1574/1. Petitioner and others claimed that the said property belong to the petitioner and others by virtue of Patta issued by the Land Tribunal on 15.10.1976. First respondent in Ext.P2, written statement denied that claim of petitioner and others. He further contended that the patta relied on by petitioner and others is not with respect to the temple property and that the patta produced is with reference to the property comprised in Sy. No.1574. Petitioner gave evidence in the course of trial as P.W.1 and made certain statements which according to respondents 1 to 4 supported their contention. At that stage petitioner came with O.P(C) No.4119 of 2011 -: 2 :- Ext.P3, application for amendment to correct the survey number and block number and to say that the 2.28 Ares of property is comprised in old Sy. No.1574 and R.S. No.339/10/4. That application was resisted by the contesting respondent. Learned Munsiff by Ext.P4, order disallowed request for amendment. 3. It is contended by learned counsel that what was requested to be amended was only typographical errors in drafting the plaint. But it is seen from Ext.P4, order that it is not merely typographical errors and that it has relevance to the very identity of the property itself. Moreover I must bear in mind that it was after the evidence was over that the request for amendment was made. I am told that the case is posted for judgment on 15.12.2011. At this stage I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P4, order. But I make it clear that in case any appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree in the suit it will be open to the petitioner to challenge correctness of Ext.P4, order in that appeal. Reserving that right of petitioner this Original Petition is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv