IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20132 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.552/2006 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SADASIVAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 79 YEARS, MURALEEDHARA VILASOM, KUNNATHUKAL DESOM, KUNNATHUKAL PAKUTY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SYAMKUMAR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, SANKAR LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FROM SARASWATHY VILASOM, KUNNATHUKAL DESOM, KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM, PIN 695 504. ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.20132/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT OS NO.552/2006 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT II, NEYYATTINKARA EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE SUIT EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCKET SHEET OF THE CASE BUNDLE KEPT IN THE CUSTODY OF THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN IA NO.573/2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT BELOW EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXT.P4 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 8.2.2010 IN IA NO.573/2010 IN OS NO.552/2006 OF THE LEARNED ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT-II, NEYYATTINKARA //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20132 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Defendant in O.S.No.552 of 2006 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Neyyattinkara is the petitioner before me. Respondent/plaintiff sued petitioner/defendant for a declaration regarding ownership of plaint C schedule property and for other reliefs. The case came up for trial in the list on 05.12.2008. Evidence was closed on 27.02.2009. The case was posted for hearing on 03.01.2010. Respondent/plaintiff sought reopening of the case and that was allowed. Respondent moved Ext.P4, application for amendment of plaint since according to the respondent, there happened to be a mis description of the name of executant of Ext.A1 and that the attempt of respondent is to remove the admission contained in Ext.A1, document and plaint and fill up lacuna in his case. Learned Munsiff as per Ext.P6, order directed that evidence in the matter is required and accordingly, posted Ext.P4, application for evidence. Grievance of petitioner/defendant is that now two parallel sets of evidence is being taken, one in the suit and the other on Ext.P4, application. Attempt of respondent is to make use of the evidence that may be let in on Ext.P4, application in the suit itself. Learned counsel for respondent contends that what happened is only a mis description of the executant of Ext.A1 and which was sought to be corrected by Ext.P4. Learned Munsiff is yet to dispose of Ext.P4, application one way or other for which learned Munsiff decided to record WP(C) No.20132/2010 2 evidence on that application. Now the evidence is being recorded on Ext.P4. In case Ext.P4 is decided against petitioner he can either challenge it separately or if the suit is decided against him, he can challenge correction of the order on Ext.P4, application in the appeal that may be preferred against the judgment and decree in the suit. Therefore I leave open all the contentions urged by petitioner in this Writ Petition to be urged either in the proceeding in challenge of the order on Ext.P4, application or in the appeal as above stated. Learned Munsiff is directed to dispose of Ext.P4, application and the suit as expeditiously as possible. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks