IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 3562 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------------- OS.NO.2582/2004 OF MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- NEELI @ DEVAKI ANTHARJANAM, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.THRIVIKRAMAN AND D/O.AGNITHRANAN,NADUVIL PAZHEDATH HOUSE, KUTTANELLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, SMT.P.A.ANITHA. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- PRINCE PAUL, S/O.KUNIPALU,PUTHUR THARAYIL HOUSE,NADATHRA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.3562/2009-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 2582/04 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST DEFENDANT IN O.S. NO. 2582/05. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DTD. 17/08/04 IN O.S. NO. 2582/04. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT, I.A. NO. 9940/07 IN O.S. NO. 2582/04. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A. NO. 9940/07 DTD. 24/11/08. EXT.P.5.A: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL OBJECTION IN I.A. NO. 9940/07 DTD. 03/12/08. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 9940/07 IN O.S. NO. 2582/04 DTD. 15/12/08. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.3562 of 2009 - Y --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To call for the records leading to Ext.P6 and set aside the same by dismissing Ext.P4 petition.” 2. Petitioner is the additional fifth defendant in O.S.No.2581 of 2004 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Suit is one for injunction. Petitioner was impleaded as additional fifth defendant as the legal heir of the first defendant on her death during the pendency of the proceedings. The first defendant in her written statement among other contentions had disputed the description of the plaint schedule. Subsequently, respondent/plaintiff moved for amending the schedule in the plaint which was objected to by the additional fifth defendant. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides allowed that amendment 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. W.P.(C).No.3562 of 2009 - Y 2 3. Though notice was given to the respondent it was returned unclaimed. I am satisfied that service is duly effected. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Perusing Ext.P6 order with reference to the submissions made by the counsel and other exhibits tendered in the writ petition, I find no propriety or illegality in the order of the court below allowing the plaintiff to correct the plaint schedule. No prejudice or injury has been caused to the contesting defendants in permitting the plaintiff to amend the schedule description. Whatever defences available to them on such amendment can be canvassed by filing additional written statement. Previously, a wrong description of the property was shown in the schedule cannot be a ground to decline the request of the plaintiff for correcting that mistake so as to incorporate the true and correct schedule in respect of which the decree of injunction is sought for. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of injunction on the amended schedule property is a matter that has to be decided after taking evidence of both parties in accordance with law. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-