IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26372 of 2008(M) -------------------------- OS.120/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- DR.ZEENATH, AGED 43 YRS, D/O.MOIDEEN KOYA, ANAKKARAN PAZHAYA PURAYIL, KOTTOOLI AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK THROUGH HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DR. C.H.ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.LATE KAMARUDDIN, AYURVEDIC PHYSICIAN, AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT S.V.HOUSE, MADAI AMSOM DESOM, P.O., PAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.M.MOHAMMED KUNHI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. PALKKAMKUZHIYIL SULEIKHA, W/O.LATE KUNHAMMED, PAZHAYA VYTHIRI, P.O., VYTHIRI, KUNNATHIDAVAKA VILAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD, CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA NORTH P.O., KALPETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, WAYANAD DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA POST, VYTHIRI TALUK. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, (RESURVEY) SULTHAN'S BATHERY, PO, SULTHAN BATHERY. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, VYTHIRI TALUK, POST VYTHIRI, KUNNATHIDAVAKA AMSOM DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER KUNNATHIDAVAKA VILLAGE, POST VYTHIRI, VYTHIRI TALUK. 7. S.V.ABDUL KARREM, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.UMMER HAJI, ENGINEER, SEEREVALAPPIL HOUSE, KOTTOOLI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK AND DISTRICT. MR.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26372 of 2008 - M --------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order quashing Ext.P4. ii) To stay further proceedings in O.S.No.120/2007 on the file of the Honourable Munsiff Court, Kalpetta till the disposal of this Writ Petition.” 2. Petitioner is the 6th defendant in O.s.No.120 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta. Suit had been instituted by the first respondent for correction of the survey records in respect of the plaint schedule properties, as recorded by the survey authorities, and for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction against correcting the revenue records on the basis of the incorrect survey measurements, and also against the present petitioner/sixth defendant and another, seventh defendant, from trespassing upon the plaint schedule properties. Petitioner/sixth defendant resisted the suit claim filing a written statement. First defendant State and also survey officials W.P.(C).No.26372 of 2008 - M 2 impleaded as defendants, it is submitted, filed written statement in the suit. First respondent/plaintiff thereupon moved an application for amending the plaint to seek additional relief of recovery of possession which was objected to by the sixth and seventh defendant. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides allowed the application for 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. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for the respondents 2 to 6. Other respondents though served have not entered appearance. 4. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of Ext.P4 order challenged in the writ petition with reference to the exhibits tendered, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff allowing the amendment application. Though the suit has been captioned as one filed under Section 14 of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act, it is noticed that in addition to the relief claimed under that Section W.P.(C).No.26372 of 2008 - M 3 plaintiff has sought for other reliefs as well against the defendants. In the light of the contentions raised by the defendants by way of amendment recovery of possession of the property which is alleged to have been trespassed upon by the defendants is sought for. No prejudice or injury will be caused to the defendants in allowing of that amendment as they would get reasonable opportunity to file an additional written statement, and also to lead evidence to resist the claim of the plaintiff. No interference with Ext.P4 is therefore warranted in exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court. Writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-