IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 39519 of 2003(D) PETITIONER: KUNHUNNI GUPTHAN, S/O.CHAMI MOOTHAN, AYYAPPANKULAM VEEDU, THACHANATTUKARA AMSOM DESOM, MANNARGHAT TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS: 1. SANKARA GUPTHAN, S/O.KUNHAN MOOTHAN, KOOTHUPARAMBU, THACHANATTUKARA AMSOM DESOM, MANNARGHAT TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. UNNIKRISHNAN S/O. SANKARA GUPTHAN, KOOTHUPARAMBU, THACHANATTUKARA AMSOM,DESOM, MANNARGHAT TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. RAJAN S/O.SANKARA GUPTHAN, KOOTHUPARAMBU, THACHANATTUKARA AMSOM DESOM, MANNARGHAT TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. JAYAN S/O. SANKARA GUPTHAN, KOOTHUPARAMBU, THACHANATTUKARA AMSOM DESOM, MANNARGHAT TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.PRAVITHA A.R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 27.7.2000 INO.S.NO.124/2000 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE'S COURT, MANNARGHAT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 16.9.2000 FILED IN I.A.NO.626/2000 IN O.S.NO.124/2000 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF- MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARGHAT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 1.12.2000 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN I.A.NO.626/2000 IN O.S.NO.124/2000 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE, MANNARGHAT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.8.2003 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE, MANNARGHAT IN I..NO.626/2000 IN O.S.NO.124/2000. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 39519 OF 2003 D -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd January, 2008 JUDGMENT The plaintiff, whose application for amendment of the plaint was dismissed by the court below, challenges the order in this Writ Petition. The suit was filed by the petitioner for injunction. Stating that there are mistakes in the name of boundary, the extent of property and the derivation of title, the plaintiff filed the application to amend the plaint. The application was opposed by the defendants. 2. The court below, after perusing the pleadings in the affidavit, held that if the amendment is allowed, it would have the effect of a new case being instituted. It was also noticed that what is sought to be incorporated by way of amendment is entirely different from the original pleadings and that prejudice would be caused to the defendants if such an amendment is allowed. 3. I do not think that the order is liable to be interfered with in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The court below thought it fit not to allow the amendment on the grounds which are cogent and reasonable. It cannot be said that the order suffers from any infirmity. The Writ Petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/