IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31241 of 2009(O) ----------------------------------------- OS.276/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.J.THOMAS, AGED 56,S/O.JOSEPH, MEKKATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, MEVIDA P.O., MEENACHIL VILLAGE, PALA-KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.S.PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. GEORGE, S/O. VARKEY, EDATTU HOUSE, MEVIDA P.O., VELLAPPADU KARA, PALA-KOTTAYAM. 2. SHAJI GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, EDATTU HOUSE, MEVIDA KARA PALA, KOTTAYAM. 3. RESHMI, W/O. SHAJI GEORGE EDATTU HOUSE MEVIDA KARA PALA, KOTTAYAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31241 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P1 to P6 and quash Ext.P6 by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction. ii) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the second defendant in O.S No. 276 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Pala. Suit is for injunction and the respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs. Resisting the suit claim petitioner filed a written statement W.P.(C).No.31241 OF 2009 Page numbers in which he had also raised a counter claim that he has a right of prescriptive easement over a way running through the plaint scheduled property. The grievance of the petitioner is that after the entire evidence was recorded and the case taken up for judgment, plaintiffs moved an application for amendment of the plaint and the court below discarding the serious objections raised by him allowed that application vide Ext.P6 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.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. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and hence it is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner/second defendant submitted that the amendment was sought for by the W.P.(C).No.31241 OF 2009 Page numbers plaintiffs to correct the description of the boundaries of the plaint schedule property. Even in the written statement the second defendant had pointed out that there was misdescription of the boundaries and that being so, according to the counsel, the belated application filed after closing of the evidence should not have been entertained by the court. Perusing Ext.P6 order passed by the learned Munsiff, I find exercising his discretion, the learned Munsiff has allowed the application on terms directing the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) to the second defendant as a condition precedent for carrying out the amendment in the plaint. It is also seen that the amendment was sought for stating that when the plaint was drafted the description in the deed was reproduced which according to the plaintiff, after a number of alienation had substantially changed. That aspect was noticed much later, and so much so, the amendment was sought for to correct the boundary W.P.(C).No.31241 OF 2009 Page numbers description as existing at present. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in Ext.P6 order passed by the learned Munsiff allowing the amendment application where it is noticed that such amendment is necessary for a proper and fair adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit. Further more the learned Munsiff has taken care to compensate the injury that is caused to the defendant by allowing the application for amendment filed belatedly. Needless to point out the learned Munsiff has to give opportunity to the defendant to file additional written statement, if any, once the amendment is carried out in the plaint. No interference with Ext.P6 order in the given facts of the case is called for. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv