IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17949 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.90/2008 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- P.G.SURENDRAN, S/O.GOPALAN, PLATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KURICHITHANAM P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.BABU KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. OMANA, PULICKAL HOUSE, CHEMPLAVU P.O., KIDANGOOR, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 2. PONNAMMA P.G., THADATHIL HOUSE, KALLARA P.O., NINDOOR. ADV. MR.B.KRISHNA MANI FOR R1,2 MR.JOSEPH T.JOHN FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17949 of 2009(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PLAINT IN O.S.NO.90/2008 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PALA DTD. 21.6.2008. EXT.P2: AMENDMENT APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PALA DTD. 20.6.2009. EXT.P3: OBJECTION FILED BY PETITIONER DTD. 23.6.2009. EXT.P4: ORDER PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, PALA IN I.A.NO.839/2009 IN O.S.NO.90/2008 DTD. 23.6.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.17949 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the defendnat in O.S.No.90 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Pala. Suit is one for partition and respondents are the plaintiffs. After trial of the case was practically over, respondents/plaintiffs moved an application for amending the plaint to correct some mistakes in the description of the plaint property. Though the petitioner/defendant filed objections to that application, learned Sub Judge, negativing the objections, allowed that amendment vide Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. The only grievance canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court below has not given him an opportunity to file an additional written statement after allowing the amendment as sought for by the plaintiff. I direct the court W.P.(C).No.17949 of 2009 - O 2 below to permit the petitioner/defendant to file an additional written statement in respect of the matters brought in by the amendment allowed under Ext.P4 order. Since the amendment allowed relate to only correction of the description of the plaint property, the permission granted to the defendant need be taken as only to extending an opportunity to bring in additional pleadings to the amended plaint and that alone. The court shall hear and dispose of the suit after filing of the additional written statement by the defendant to the amended plaint, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before closing of the courts for the mid summer vacation. Writ petition is disposed of as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-