IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3577 of 2009(A) ------------------------------------------ 1A.120/2009 IN OS.102/2008 of M.C., KOCHI .................... PETITIONERS: 1. VAHEEDA, AGED 45, W/O.T.M.ABDUL KHADAR, THATTRATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD. 2. C.A.KUNJU MUHAMMED, AGED 72, S/O.ABU, CHETHIKULATH, EDAVANAKKAD 3. K.K.JAMALUDDIN, AGED 64, S/O.KUNHI MUHAMMED HAJI, KIZHAKKEVEETTIL, EDAVANAKKAD. 4. T.P.VIJAYABHANU, AGED 55, S/O.PADAMANABHAN T.I.THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.EDAVANAKKAD. 5. RAMESH BABU, AGED 49, S/O.BHARATHAN, VELOOR HOUSE, EDAVANAKAD. 6. K.K.ABDULLA, AGED 60, S/O.KUNHI MUHAMMED HAJI, KIZHAKKEVEETTIL, EDAVANAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENT: 1. V.A.MUHAMMED, AGED 65, S/O.ABDU KUNJI, VALIYARA, EDAVANAKKAD. 2. BEEVATHU, AGED ABOUT 63, W/O.V.A.MUHAMMED -DO- THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.3577 of 2009 A -------------------------- JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.102/08 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kochi assailing Exhibit P2 order dismissing Exhibit P1 application for amendment of the plaint. It is submitted that trial of the suit is going on now and the plaintiffs' evidence is already over and it was then that Exhibit P1 application for amendment of the plaint was filed. It is further submitted that defendants have not started their evidence. The amendments sought for are seen to be to correct very minor mistakes in furnishing the details of the boundaries and a slight discrepancy in describing the property under H schedule. 2. I am of the view that no amendment at all is required, as it would suffice for the plaintiffs to swear that such minor mistakes have occasioned WPC 3577/09 2 while describing the property in the plaint. Counsel for the petitioners submits that occurring of such mistakes had been rectified while tendering evidence. If the mistakes have been so rectified, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to bring to the notice of the court below at the time of arguments that there was a slight mistake that had occurred in the description of the property and the description of the boundary in the plaint and that fact also will be evidenced from the fact that an amendment application had been moved, so that the slight difference in the description of the property in the plaint will not be taken by the court below as any wrong description wilfully made. In view of the above observation, I am not of the view that the order passed by the court below disallowing the amendment after trial has started deserves to be interfered with. In the result, I dispose of this writ petition with the above observations. Petitioners, if so WPC 3577/09 3 advised, may produce a copy of this judgment in the court below with copy duly furnished to the counsel for the respondents/defendants in the court below, as this writ petition is being disposed of without notice to them. Issue copy of this judgment to the counsel for the petitioners urgently. 4th February, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv