IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23745 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.240/2000 of MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THALAYANKANDI THARIKUTTY HAJI, S/O.UMMERKUTTY, BUSINESS, KOODALI AMSOM DESOM, KOODALI P.O. BY ADV. MR.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. PALLIPATH SHEREEFA, D/O.ABU HAJI, SAMEERA MANZIL, IRIKKOR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 2. PALLIPPATH MAMMAD, S/O.MOOSA, PANJARAPURAYIL, KOLARI AMSOM, MANNUR DESOM, PORORA P.O. 3. KAYAKKUL VALLIPARAMBATH ABU, S/O.PERIYEYI, PANJARAPURAYIL, KOLARI AMSOM, MANNUR DESOM, PORORA P.O. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.23745 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Ext.P6 and quash the original of the same. ii) To declare that the amendment if allowed will change the entire nature and character of the suit.” 2. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.240 of 2000 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Koothuparambu. The above suit was filed for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction, by the first respondent in which he later moved an application for amending the suit as one for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Ext.P4 is the copy of that application for amendment. Though the amendment was objected to by the petitioner, learned Munsiff allowed the application vide P6 order. Propriety and correctness of P6 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. W.P.(C).No.23745 of 2009 - O 2 4. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented with reference to P6 order and other material tendered in the writ petition, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. 5. The grievance espoused by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court below has expressed some views over the plea of limitation canvassed by the defendants which, ultimately may affect the suit on its disposal on meirt. Perusing P6 order, I find in examining the question whether the amendment relate back to the date of suit, or from the date of allowing it, which alone was canvassed by the defendants as permissible in the given facts of the case the learned Munsiff has expressed some views that the plea of limitation canvassed by the defendants has on no basis. In exercise of visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court, I do not propose to examine the propriety or correctness of the observations made in P6 order. But, I make it clear that the suit has to be disposed of untrammelled by any of the observations made in P6 order on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the parties in support W.P.(C).No.23745 of 2009 - O 3 of their respective case and the legal principles applicable. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-