IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3844 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/11/2009 IN IA 2441/2009 IN OS.436/2002 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM PETITIONER(S): 1. PEETHAMBARAN, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, KAVIYOOR HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. JANARDHANAN OF DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA RESPONDENT(S): 1. K.MATHEW, S/O.K.J.MATHEW, MALLAKKAL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. GEETHA PEETHAMBARAN OF KAVIYOOR HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 3. VIJAYAMMA OF DO. DO. 4. REMA DEVI OF DO. DO. 5. MAYADEVI JANARDHANAN OF DO. DO. 6. PARAMESWARA PILLAI OF DO. DO. 7. SOMANATHAN P & T QUARTERS, KANJIRAPPALLY. 8. LALITHA SOMANATHAN OF DO. DO. 9. AJITH KUMAR OF DO. DO. 10. K.K.USHADEVI AMMA OF DO. DO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.3844 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8 th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Defendants 4 to 8 in O.S.No.438 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Kottayam are the writ petitioners. The said suit instituted by the respondent herein is one for declaration of title, recovery of possession and other consequential reliefs. As per Ext.P5 order dated 18.11.2009 on I.A.No.2441/2009, the court below has permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint so as to incorporate the survey number and extent of the property described in the plaint schedule. It is the said order which is assailed in this writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions before me in support of the writ petition. The defendants had specifically raised in the written statement about the omission to mention the extent and survey number of the property described in the plaint schedule. Still the plaintiff did not amend the plaint schedule. The application for amendment was filed only after the plaintiff examined as PW1 was cross-examined. W.P.(c)No.3844 of 2010 2 This was an application filed belatedly and in gross violation of proviso to Order VI Rule 7 C.P.C and the court below ought not have granted the amendment. 3. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above submissions. It is true that the application for amendment was filed at a belated stage. But the plaintiff was prompted to file the application on account of the contentions raised by the petitioners and the other defendants that the description of the plaint schedule is vague for want of survey number and extent . It was the said omission which was sought to be supplied by the amendment, though the application was filed at the fag end of the examination of the plaintiff as PW1. The court below has accepted the explanation offered by the plaintiff regarding the delay and allowed him to amend the plaint schedule by incorporating the survey number and extent of the property described in the plaint schedule. I do not think that the discretion exercised by the court below was unjustified or was to the extreme prejudice of the defendants. The defendants are not taken by surprise in the plaintiff seeking to supply the survey number and extent of the plaint schedule which was specifically W.P.(c)No.3844 of 2010 3 the defence raised in the written statement. I do not find any good reason to interfere with Ext.P5 order passed by the court below. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It goes without saying that the petitioners will have the liberty to file an additional statement. Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj