IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 1128 of 2010(O) ------------------------- IA NO.869/2009 IN OS.76/2009 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, SOUTH PARAVOOR .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ AMBILI, ALUVILA KARTHIKAYIL, VARINJAM CHERRY, KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM-691 578. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SINDHU, ALUVILA CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VARINJAM CHERRY, NADAKKAL, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM-691 578. 2. SUJATHA, ALUVILA CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VARINJAM CHERRY, NADAKKAL, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM-691 578. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.1128 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT This petition is in challenge of Ext.P4, order dated September 27, 2010 on I.A.No.869 of 2009 in O.S.No.76 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff- Magistrate, South Paravur allowing request for amendment of plaint. The order states that though objection is seen filed (by petitioner), counsel did not oppose the application in court (at the time I.A.No.869 of 2009 came up for hearing). According to the learned counsel, it is not correct to say that the counsel had not opposed the application for amendment. If that be so, proper remedy available to the petitioner is to seek a review of the impugned order as provided under law. On the face of what is stated in Ext.P4, this petition cannot be entertained. Hence this petition is closed without prejudice to other rights, if any of petitioner. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks