IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33830 of 2009(O) ------------------------- OPELE.49/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- ADV.M.PHILIP KOSHY S/O.M.P.KOSHY, AGED 52 YEARS, MODIYIL USHUS MALLAPPALLY WEST, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. K.SHAJ MR.L.RAJ MOHAN MR.SAJJU.S RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. PROF.SAJI CHACKO,S/O.K.K.CHACKO AGED 48 YEARS, KUZHIVELIL HOUSE, THURITHICADU MURI KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. MADHU PARUMALA, S/O.GOPALA PANICKER AGED 43 YEARS, PONVALIL HOUSE, PARUMALA P.O.PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. A.K.SAJEEV, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU AGED 35 YEARS, MAMANDATHU HOUSE NJILITHANAM PO, THIRUVALLA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33830 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exhibit P5 order and set aside Exhibit P5 order dated 6.11.2009 in O.P.(Election) 49/2005 of the District Court, Pathanamthitta allowing the election petitioner/first respondent to make necessary amendments in the election petition to conform with law without even an amendment application having been filed by the election petitioner/first respondent.” 2. Petitioner is the first respondent in O.P.(Ele).No.49 of 2008 on the file of the District Court, Pathanamthitta. He is the returned candidate in No.2, Mallappalli Division of the Pathanamthitta District Panchayath. In the election petition preferred by the first respondent, his election is being impeached on various grounds, with which at present no advertence is called for to dispose the writ petition. Previously there was a writ petition at the instance of the petitioner challenging the order passed by the District Court permitting the first respondent (petitioner in the election petition) to amend the petition. W.P.(C).No.33830 of 2009 - O 2 Petitioner had filed another revision also challenging the finding entered by the learned District Judge as to the maintainability of the election petition. The writ petition and revision petition after being heard together were disposed by Ext.P3 judgment. Revision was dismissed, and writ petition disposed subject to the observations made which inter alia reserved the right of the petitioner to contest on merits all triable issues raised in the petition. Pursuant thereto amendment had been carried out in the election petition by the first respondent/petitioner in the election petition, but, in carrying out such amendments, corrections to be made in the verification column was made by the counsel which under law required to be done only by the petitioner in the election petition. That infirmity was later permitted to be corrected by the court. That was objected to by the petitioner pointing out the verification made out was also not correct. However, the court below permitted the first respondent in the election petition to rectify the infirmity with respect to the corrections made by the counsel on the verification column. Ext.P5 is the copy of the order passed by the court negativing the objections raised by the petitioner to resist permission being W.P.(C).No.33830 of 2009 - O 3 accorded to the first respondent (petitioner in the election petition) from carrying out the corrections. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P5 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel and taking note of the facts and circumstances present, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on R.P.Moidutty v. P.T.Kunju Muhammed and Another (2000 (1) SCC 481) contended that the court below went wrong in permitting the petitioner in the election petition, first respondent in the writ petition, to rectify the serious infirmities which had occurred in the verification column of the election petition and also in the annexures produced with the petition. Some amendments have also been permitted to be carried out by the petitioner even without filing a separate petition for amendment is the further grievance espoused by the learned counsel to assail Ext.P5 order. Even in the decision relied by the learned counsel W.P.(C).No.33830 of 2009 - O 4 it has been made clear the defect on verification is not fatal to the petition, and it can be cured. So much so Ext.P5 order passed by the court below permitting the petitioner in the election petition to carry out the infirmities in the verification column whether it had occurred by the previous corrections made by his counsel or not, cannot be found fault with. It is also noticed that a time limit had been fixed by this Court under Ext.P3 judgment for trial and disposal of the election petition. The term of office of the petitioner will expire within a short span of ten months. Perusing Ext.P5 order also I find that no interference with the order is called for by invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court. Whatever challenges available to the petitioner with respect to the corrections made to the verification column can be canvassed in the trial of the petition, if so provided by law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-