IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 24TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27470 of 2008(T) -------------------------- OS.80/2007 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE, ERATTUPETTA .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------- BABY GEOPRGE, S/O/GEORGE INCHERYIL HOUSE, ARUVITHURA P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. ANITHA JOSE, W/O.JOSHE INCHERYIL HOUSE, ARUVITHURA P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. ANAND JOSE, JOSE INCHERYIL HOUSE, ARUVITHURA P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).No.27470 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15 th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the plaintiff in O.S.No.80 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Erattupetta. The said suit was one for fixation of boundaries of the plaint schedule item No.2 which is the property belonging to the defendants. The suit was filed in the year 2007. The Advocate Commissioner deputed by the trial court filed his report and plan on 4.6.08. The suit was listed for trial on 5.9.08. On 21.8.08, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.802 of 2008 seeking an amendment of the plaint so as to delete some portions of the pleadings in the plaint where it is alleged that the plaint schedule item No.1 belonging to the plaintiff is lying surrounding the properties of the defendants and that in order to reach the property of the defendants there is a road in existence passing through the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also wanted consequential amendment to the description of the plaint schedule item No.2. The justification put forward by the plaintiff in support of the W.P.(c).No.27470 of 2008 2 application for amendment is that it was to make the plaint in conformity with the report and plan submitted by the petitioner. It has rightly been rejected by the court below. Apart from the fact that the report and plan were submitted by the Commissioner as early as on 4.6.08 and the plaintiff had no case for three months that the plaint was not in conformity with the report and plan submitted by the Commissioner. Moreover, if the amendment as sought by the petitioner were to be allowed, that would alter the nature of the suit. The court below has, therefore, fully justified in dismissing the application. If the plaintiff has got a case that the suit suffers from any formal defect, he may withdraw the suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit against the defendants. At any rate, the order passed by the court below dismissing Ext.P4 application for amendment of the plaint does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety giving rise to an error of jurisdiction, justifying interference by this Court. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 15 th day of September, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj