IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 22603 OF 2010(O) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2363/2010 IN OS.1623/2008 OF PRL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ABDUL RAHIMAN,S/O.PONTHELVALAPPIL BAVU, KARALAM VILLAGE AND DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP SRI.M.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SURESH,S/O.POZHEKKADAVIL SREEDHARAN, KARALAM VILLAGE AND DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR,PIN-680 711. 2. SUNIL,S/O.THEKKANATH RAMAKRISHNAN, KARALAM VILLAGE AND DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR,PIN-680 711. 3. ANILAN,S/O.POZHEKKADAVIL DAMODARAN, KARALAM VILLAGE AND DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR,PIN-680 711. 4. SANDHYA,W/O.ANILAN,KARALAM VILLAGE AND DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR,PIN-680 711. 5. SECRETARY,KARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARALAM,THRISSUR,PIN-680 711. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) 22603 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1623 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Irinjalakuda. That is a suit for prohibitory injunction against respondents trespassing into the suit property and demolishing the compound wall. Item No.1 of plaint schedule is described as part of 17 cents covered by document No.1743/1992. Towards the fag end of the proceedings petitioner filed I.A.No.2363 of 2010 to amend the plaint to state that what is left with petitioner is a portion of 17 cents excluding 0.828 cents surrendered for road as per document No.557/1997. That request was disallowed by the learned Munsiff stating that case of petitioner in the plaint and in his evidence as P.W.1 is that he is still in possession of 17 cents. Learned counsel contends that court below was not correct in dismissing the application. 2. As stated by learned counsel in fairness, trial in the case is over and the case is posted for judgment. Petitioner as P.W.1 in his evidence stated that he is in possession of 17 cents W.P(C) No.22603 of 2010 -: 2 :- even excluding portion surrendered for road. In fact a reading of plaint schedule also shows that according to petitioner even excluding portion surrendered for road he is in possession of 17 cents. Now that the case is about to be disposed of I do not consider it proper or necessary to interfere and stall the proceeding of the court below. I make it clear that in case the decision in the case goes against the petitioner it is open to him to challenge correctness of dismissal of I.A.No.2363 of 2010 in the appeal that petitioner may prefer. Writ Petition is closed with the above observation. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv