IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1476 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DTD. 3.12.2009 IN I.A.NO.1563/2009 IN OS.409/2001 of MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. PALLIKKUNIYUIL KAMALA,W/O.LATE RAGHAVAN KOTTAYAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O.,KOTTAYAM,MALABAR. 2. NALUPURAKKAL SURENDRAN, S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, KOTTAYAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O.,KOTTAYAM, MALABAR. 3. NALUPURAKKAL SASIDHARAN, S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, KOTTAYAM AMSOM, DESOM, P.O. KOTTAYAM MALABAR 4. ERANHOLI NALUPURAKKAL MAJOJ KUMAR, S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, KOTTAYAM AMSOM, DESOM, P.O. KOTTAYAM MALABAR 5. ERANHOLI NALUPURAKKAL SHEEJA, D/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, KOTTAYAM AMSOM, DESOM P.O. KOTTAYMA,MALABAR. 6. ERANHOLI NALUPURAKKAL SHEENA, D/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, KOTTAYAM AMSOM, DESOM P.O. KOTTAYMA,MALABAR. 7. ERANHOLI NALUPURAKKAL SHEEBA D/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, KOTTAYM AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.KOTTAYAM, MALABAR. 8. ERANHOLI NALUPURAKKAL SHEEMA, D/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, KOTTAYM AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.KOTTAYAM, MALABAR. 9. ERANHOLI NALUPURAKKAL MINI, D/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, KOTTAYM AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.KOTTAYAM, MALABAR. BY ADV. MS.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA MR.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) (CNTD.....2) WP(C).No. 1476 of 2010(O) ::2:: RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.V.KRISHNAN,S/O. NARAYANAN, PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTAYAM AMSOM,DESOM- 686 001 2. K.C.RAJAMMA, W/O. P.V.KRISHNAN, PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTAYAM AMSOM, DESOM - 686 001 3. HAYATHUL ISLAM MADRASSA COMMITTEE, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT P.KUNHUMASTER, KOTTAYAM AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.KOTTAYAM,MALABAR - 686 001 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PAZHASSI IRRIGATION, PROJECT DIVISION NO.II,KANNUR. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1476 of 2010 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.409 of 2001 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba. Suit was filed for fixation of boundary and the respondents are the defendants. The above suit was instituted after getting permission from the court to withdraw a previous suit in which a relief of perpetual prohibitory injunction was canvassed in respect of the very same property against the respondents/defendants. In the present suit after an advocate commissioner deputed by he court filed a report conducting local inspection and measuring out the property petitioners/plaintiffs applied for amendment of the plaint to seek an additional relief of recovery of possession. That amendment was objected to by the respondents/defendants. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides allowed the amendment application vide Ext.P3 order subject to the condition that the amendment will not relate back to the date of the suit but only from the date of filing of the application. Propriety and W.P.(C).No.1476 of 2010 - O 2 correctness of that order passed by the court to the extent that the amendment will not relate back to the date of filing of the suit is challenged in the writ petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard tot he submissions made and perusing Ext.P3 order challenged in the writ petition with reference to other exhibits involved in the case, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. 3. In Ext.P3 order the learned Munsiff after considering the objections raised by the defendants has come to the conclusion that whether the relief now canvassed for recovery of possession sought for is entertainable or not can be decided only after trial providing the parties reasonable opportunity to lead evidence in support of their case. Taking note that the present suit had been instituted after getting permission to withdraw a previous suit and the amendment seeking recovery has been filed nearly 12 years after the institution of that suit the court in the W.P.(C).No.1476 of 2010 - O 3 light of the objections raised by the defendants has held that the amendment allowed will not relate back to the date of institution of the suit but only from the date of application. I find no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Munsiff. Writ petition lacks merit and hence it is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-