IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36378 of 2008(E) -------------------------------------- OS.126/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT,VARKALA .................... PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------- SUDHARMA, D/O.KAUSALYA, 'YAMUNA', MMRA/91,NEAR MANNAMMOOLA BRIDGE, VATTIYOORKAVU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.K.PRASAD MR.ABHILASH S.FRANCIS RESPONDENT/DEFENDENT: --------------------------------------- SADANANDAN, S/O.KESAVAN, PARAVILA VEEDU, THONNIPPARA, AYIROOR. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 36378/2008-E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.126/2005 DATED 08/04/2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3508 OF SRO, VARKALA DATED 16/09/1974. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE SAID I.A. NO.1601/2008 DATED 26/08/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.1601/2008 DATED 04/10/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COUNTER CLAIM DATED 29/07/2005 FILED BY THE DEFENDANT IN O.S. NO.126/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36378 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S 126/05 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Varkala. Suit is one for fixation and putting up boundary, and the respondent is the defendant. In the written statement filed a counter claim was set up contending that he has prescriptive right of easement over a way through the plaint property. The defendant sought for a decree for declaring that right over the way which was scheduled as 'B' schedule and for a perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the plaintiff from obstructing his enjoyment over that way. Plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint to correct a mistake in the description of W.P.(C).No.36378 OF 2008 2 one of the items of plaint property. Ext.P3 is the copy of that application which was objected to by the defendant by filing a written objection. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides dismissed that application by Ext.P4 order. Correctness and propriety of Ext.P4 order is challenged in this petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Notice was served on the respondent, but, he has not entered appearance. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusing Ext.P4 order, I find the question is whether the correction sought for by the plaintiff was required for resolving the controversy arising for disposal of the suit . Application for amendment was dismissed only for the reason that the plaint description tallied with the title deed produced by the W.P.(C).No.36378 OF 2008 3 plaintiff and so much so, till the title deed is corrected, plaintiff is not entitled to have the amendment brought in the plaint. I find the reason so stated by the learned Munsiff is erroneous. Even if there is a mistake in the title deed, it does not debar the plaintiff from claiming relief sought for in the suit showing the correct description of his property. By tendering evidence, he can show what exactly is the description of his property, even if there is a mistake thereto in the title deed. Perusing Ext.P3 application I find the only amendment sought for is to correct the description shown in the 'A' schedule of the plaint, to add 'southern end' deleting what is shown earlier as 'northern end'. It appears to be an innocuous correction for rectification of a mistake, which occurred in carrying out the description in the title deed, which, according to the counsel, was not correct. W.P.(C).No.36378 OF 2008 4 No prejudice would be caused to the defendant in allowing the rectification of that mistake in the schedule and the court below was not correct and justified in dismissing that application. Ext.P4 order is set aside. Learned Munsiff is directed to allow the plaintiff to carry out the correction in the plaint as prayed for in Ext.P3 application. Writ petition is closed with the observations as above. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv