IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38191 of 2008(A) --------------------------------------------- IA.1167/2008 IN OS.899/2007 & IA.1168/08 IN OS.1019/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER: AMBUJAKSHI, W/O.KAMBLIKKAL SREEDHARAN, AYYAPPANPALAM DESOM, ERIYAD VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJESH SRI.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENTS: 1. SUBRAHMUNIAN, S/O.KALATHIL ADIMAKUNJI, AYYAPPANPALAM DESOM, ERIYAD VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 2. ALLI, W/O.SUBRAHMUNIAN, DO. DO. 3. NASAR, S/O.KALLUNGAL KOCHUMUHAMMED, DO. DO. 4. ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.KALLUNGAL KOCHUMUHAMMED, DO. DO. 5. BINDU, W/O.MADATHINKAL ASOKAN, DO. DO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.38191 of 2008 V -------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the first plaintiff in O.S.No. 1019/07 and the first defendant in O.S.No.899/07 pending before the Munsiff's Court, Kodungallur. As per Exhibit P1 common order on I.A.Nos.1981/07 and 2145/07 respectively in O.S.Nos.899/07 and 1019/07, the court below directed the parties to the suits to maintain status quo as regards the thodu situated on the southern side of the scheduled property. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.899/07, who are respondents 3 to 5 herein, filed Exhibit P2 application for amendment of Exhibit P1 common order and the defendants in O.S.No.1019/07, who are the respondents herein, filed Exhibit P3 application for amending Exhibit P1 common order, clarifying the status quo directed to be maintained by adding the words “as seen and reported by the Advocate Commissioner in Exhibits C1 and C1(a)”. Petitioner filed Exhibit P4 counter thereto. The WPC 38191/08 2 court below passed Exhibits P5 and P6 orders allowing the corrections so sought for vide Exhibits P2 and P3 observing that the counter filed by the petitioner is only a formal one and that Exhibits P2 and P3 applications deserve to be allowed. Exhibits P5 and P6 orders are assailed by the petitioner contending that those orders suffer infirmity for the reason that those are not speaking orders, as the court does not discuss in those orders as to how it is an accidental error or slip so as to enable the court to amend the order as prayed for. 2. It is true that it is not so specifically made mention of in Exhibits P5 and P6 orders, but, all the same, from Exhibit P1 order, it can be seen that the court below directed the parties to maintain status quo as regards the thodu situated on the southern side of the petition schedule property. While considering Point No.1 in I.A.No. 2145/07 in O.S.No.1019/07, in the last sentence of WPC 38191/08 3 paragraph 13, the court below found as follows: “Therefore, till the disposal of the suit, status quo as regards to the thodu seen and reported by the Advocate Commissioners in Exhibits C1, C1(a), C2 and C2(a) have to be maintained. Points are found accordingly.” It is thereafter that in the final portion of the order, status quo is directed to be maintained as regards the thodu situated on the southern side of the petition schedule property without specifying that the thodu seen and reported by the Advocate Commissioners in Exhibits C1, C1(a), C2 and C2(a). Non mentioning of the details of the thodu so mentioned in paragraph 15 of the order, while disposing of the applications, by not making such specifications in the final portion, cannot be gain said as not an accidental omission or slip. It was, therefore, that the omission or slip was WPC 38191/08 4 allowed to be corrected by the court below vide Exhibits P5 and P6 orders. Exhibit P4 counter is filed by the petitioner contending only that there was no accidental omission or slip or error in Exhibit P1 order. It was, therefore, that the court below observed in Exhibits P5 and P6 orders that the counter is only a formal one. There is absolutely no merit in this writ petition and this writ petition is dismissed. 5th January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv