IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 8473 of 2008(H) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/05/2006 IN IA 180/06 IN OS.385/2002 of PRL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONERS: DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2/COUNTER PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJENDRAN, AGED 50, S/O.SUKUMARAN MALANCHARIVU, PUTHEN VEEDU, KARICHAL PULLUVILA PO, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. OMANA, AGED 44, W/O.RAJENDRAN, DO DO. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFFS & DEFENDANTS 3 TO 6 ------------------------------------------- 1. SREENIVASAN, AGED 51, S/O.SADASIVAN ANIS HOUSE, MALANCHARIVU, KARICHAL, PULLUVILA PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 2. SHOBHA KUMARI, AGED 41, W/O.SREENIVASAN OF DO. DO. 3. P.BABU, POWRNAMI, KARICHAL NEYYATTINKARA. 4. KANJIRAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY. 5. PRESIDENT, KANJIRAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT 6. SURENDRAN, KARICHAL WARD - MEMBER KANJIRAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO 8473/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS 385/02 DT. 11.3.04 OF PRL. MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA EXT.P2. COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS 385/02 DT. 11.3.04 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA EXT.P3. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA 180/06 IN OS 385/02 DT. 9.1.06 EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 180/06 IN OS 385/02 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA DT. 25.5.06 EXT.P5. COPY OF THE PETITION IN EP 148/07 IN OS 385/02 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA DT. 12.6.07 EXT.P6. COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN EP 148/07 DT. 25.9.07 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a). COPY OF THE PLAN APPENDED TO THE SAID DECREE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 8473 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against Ext.4 order whereby the Principal Munsiff, Neyyattinkara has ordered correction of letters in the plan. The correction was that the line 'QM' was corrected as 'QF'. The counsel for the parties had brought to my attention the plan. I had perused the same. The mistake that is committed is apparently a clerical error and that it can only be 'QF' and not 'QM' for the reason that it is QFEV that is allotted to the party. It is true that the memo giving the copy should have been produced and the court should have ascertained the views of the other side as well, before passing a final order. But I think for that purpose the matter need not be sent back because it is a clerical mistake committed and it can only be 'QF' and not 'QM'. Therefore I do not find any ground which requires interference in this writ petition. The writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps