IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).NO. 22024 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------------ OS.370/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, PUTHENPEEDIKAYIL, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. P.A.ANEESH, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, PUTHENPEEDIKAYIL, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. K.R.RAVI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN, KALLIKKATTU HOUSE, VENGOLA KARA, VENGOLA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN-683 554. 2. P.A.ANIL, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, PUTHENPEEDIKAYIL, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.S.LEELALAKSHMI FOR R2 SRI.T.K.SAJEEV FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.22024 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 11th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Exhibits P9 and P10, orders are under challenge in this Writ Petition at the instance of petitioners-plaintiffs in the suit. Petitioners along with respondent No.2 filed the suit for fixation of boundary and injunction against respondent No.1. Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and submitted Ext.P2, report and sketch. Advocate Commissioner again inspected the property with assistance of a Surveyor and submitted Ext.P3, report and sketch. On the fag end of the proceeding there was an application (Ext.P5) to remit the reports and plans to the Advocate Commissioner. Along with that, petitioner also filed an application (Ext.P4) to amend plaint as I.A. No.872 of 2010. Those applications were dismissed by the learned Sub Judge. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that remission of Exts.P2 and P3, reports and plans and amendment of plaint are necessary but the learned Munsiff dismissed applications for unjustifiable reasons. 2. It is submitted that after filing of this Writ Petition W.P(C) No.22024 of 2010 -: 2 :- evidence in the case was recorded. Now question is whether at this stage it is necessary to interfere with Exts.P9 and P10, orders. 3. So far as Ext.P9, order on I.A. No.872 of 2010 for amendment of plaint is concerned learned Munsiff states that suit is listed for trial along with O.S. No.368 of 2007 on the day Ext.P9, order was passed and that amendment was requested to be made on the strength of the reports filed by the Advocate Commissioner which itself is sought to be remitted as per Ext.P4, application. Learned Munsiff found that in the circumstances request for amendment of the plaint is not allowable. Exhibit P10, order is also passed on the day case came up for trial in the list. It is not as if petitioner is precluded from challenging correctness of Exts.P9 and P10, orders in case the decision in the suit went against him. It is also not as if whenever there is some inadequacy in the report of Advocate Commissioner this Court is required to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution. In Sarojini v. Karthiyani Amma (2010 [1] KLT SN [Case No.19) it is stated that except when it is shown that order passed suffered from such infirmity which if not corrected would result in grave injustice this Court is not justified in interfering under Article W.P(C) No.22024 of 2010 -: 3 :- 227 of the Constitution. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find it necessary at this stage to interfere with the impugned orders. But I make it clear that in the appeal that may be preferred against the judgment and decree from the suit petitioners can challenge correctness of Exts.P9 and P10, orders. Reserving that right of petitioners this Writ Petition is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv