IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP(C).No. 1732 of 2011(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 461/2011 IN OS.14/2006 of PRL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-II .................... PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. SARASWATHI P.P., W/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN P.P.,AGED 60 YEARS, EZHUKANDIYIL HOUSE, KUTTIKKATTUR AMSOM, VELLIPARAMBA DESOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK-673008 2. BINDHU P.P.,D/O LATE VELAYUDHAN P.P., AGED 39,PONNATH HOUSE CHELAVUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK-673571 3. ANAND P.P., AGED 36 ,S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN P.O., EZHUKANDIYIL HOUSE, KUUTKKATTUR AMSOM, VELIPARAMBA DESOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK-673008 4. SHAJU P.P.,AGED S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN P.P. EZHUKANDIYIL HOUSE,KUTTIKKATTUR AMSOM, VELLIPARAMBA DESOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK-673008. BY ADV. SRI.SRINATH GIRISH SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NITHIN NAIR, AGED 34,S/O.MURALEEDHARAN,'ANAGHA',33/466-A, CHEVAYUR AMSOM DESOM,MALAPARAMBA,KOZHIKODE TALUK 673009 2. REKHA,AGED 32,W/O.NITHIN NAIR, 'ANAGHA',33/466-A,CHEVAYUR AMSOM DESOM, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE TALUK-673009 3. BHASKARAN,AGED 61,S/O.KUTTAYI @ CHERUTTY THACHAMBATH MEETHAL HOUSE,KUTTIKKATTUR AMSOM, VELIPARAMBA DESOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK-673008 4. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 44,S/O.VELAHUDHAN NAIR, PADINHARE THACHANMBATH HOUSE,KUTTIKKATTUR AMSOM, VELIPARAMBA DESOM,KOZHKODE TALUK-673008 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C)No.1732 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT The plaintiffs in O.S.No.14 of 2006, whose application for amendment of the plaint was partly dismissed, challenge that part of the order in this Original Petition. 2. The predecessor in interest of the petitioners filed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint B schedule property. On the death of the plaintiff, the petitioners were impleaded as supplemental plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that the plaint A schedule property belongs to them. On the northern side of the plaint schedule property, the plaintiffs left a portion having a width of 4 feet for the formation of a pathway O.P(C)No.1732 OF 2011 2 leading towards West. The allegation is that the defendant, the owner of the property on the northern side, widened the pathway by encroaching upon the plaint B schedule property, which lies on the southern side of the 4 feet wide pathway. 3. The amendment sought for is to delete the averments in the plaint to the effect that 4 feet wide pathway was provided by taking land from the plaintiffs' property. The amendment was opposed by the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to withdraw an admission made in the plaint. The court below, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to amend the plaint in such a way so as to take away the admission made by them in the plaint. The prayer for amendment in respect of the Survey O.P(C)No.1732 OF 2011 3 Number was allowed by the court. I have gone through the plaint, the B schedule therein, the application for amendment and the amendment sought to be introduced in the plaint. On a careful consideration, I am also of the view that the petitioners cannot be allowed to take away the admission made in the plaint, by way of an amendment of plaint. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below. The Original Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms