IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20096 of 2008(P) --------------------------------------- (OS.406/2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- SASIKUMAR, SREEPADAM, CHERUVALLOOR, PARAMCODU MURI, ELAMADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.J.DEVADANAM, ADV. SRI.VINOD J.DEV, ADV. SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV. RESPONDENT: --------------------- CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, BINDU NIVAS, CHERUVALLOOR, UMANNOOR MURI, UMANNOOR VILLAGE. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P(C). NO. 20096 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant and respondent the plaintiff in O.S. 406 of 2004 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kottarakara. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P4 order whereunder learned Munsiff permitted respondent/plaintiff to amend the plaint. The amendment sought for under Ext.P2 application filed under Rule 17 of Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure is only to add the following in the description of the property: “ The old survey number as per the old Survey Records is seen as 11/1-12” 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that in spite of serious objections raised by the petitioner, learned Munsiff did not consider the same and Ext.P4 is only a non speaking order and in such circumstances it is to be quashed. True, Ext.P4 does not elaborately consider the nature of the amendment sought for or the grounds on which it was opposed and the reason for allowing the application. But WPC20096/2008 2 the question is whether in exercise of the powers of this court under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the order is to be interfered. By Ext.P4 order learned Munsiff has only allowed plaintiff to add in the description of the plaint schedule property the old survey number as per the old Survey Records is seen as 11/1-12. This will not prejudice respondent at all. If the case of petitioner is that the old survey number is not 11/1-12 as now shown by the amendment, petitioner is entitled to file an additional written statement. By the amendment it is only shown that as per the old survey records that survey number is seen. If it is not seen, petitioner is entitled to adduce evidence. If what is shown is not correct, petitioner is entitled to plead and prove the same. In such circumstances even though Ext.P4 is not a speaking order, in the nature and circumstance of the case I do not find it necessary to interfere with Ext.P4 order. Writ petition is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-