IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 CRP.No. 521 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/09/2010 IN IA 543/2010 IN OS.110/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANOOR. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------------------- JOMI GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, MANNASSERY VEETTIL, KANAKKARI.P.O., KANAKKARI KARA KANAKKARI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR SRI.V.V.MITHUN RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. KUNJUMON THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, MULARKATTU VEETTIL, KANAKKARI.P.O., KANAKKARI KARA, KANAKKARI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. PIN-686632. 2. GEORGE THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, MULARKATTU VEETTIL, KANAKKARI.P.O., KANAKKARI KARA, KANAKKARI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. PIN-686632. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.521 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 07th day of October, 2010 O R D E R This revision is in challenge of the order passed by learned Munsiff, Ettumanoor on I.A. No.543 of 2010 in O.S. No.110 of 2009. That is a suit for declaration that respondents have no right to construct a canal adjoining boundary of the suit property taking away its lateral support, for fixation of boundary and other reliefs. In the course of proceeding petitioner filed I.A. No.543 of 2010 for amendment to incorporate in the plaint a piece of land which according to the Advocate Commissioner formed part of item No.1 of plaint schedule and required for fixing boundary of plaint item No.1. That application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff which is sought to be revised. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner on maintainability of the Revision. 2. Under Section 115(1) read with its proviso of the Code of Civil Procedure the High Court could exercise the power of revision with respect to a case decided by the subordinate court only if revision if allowed would finally dispose of the suit or other C.R.P. No.521 of 2010 -: 2 :- proceeding. Here refusal to allow amendment of plaint is sought to be reviewed. Allowing or disallowing of that application would not in any way dispose of the suit. Hence revision is not maintainable. Remedy if any of petitioner is to challenge the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence without prejudice to other rights if any of petitioner this Revision Petition is dismissed. Registry shall return the original documents produced by the petitioner to the counsel on request. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv