IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35942 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/11/2009 IN IA 3040/09 IN OS.311/2008 of PRL.M.C., KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------- JAGANADHA PRASAD @ REGHU, S/O.SAHADEVAN, AGED 53 YEARS, C.S.SADANAM, T.B.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB SMT.NISHA JOHN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------- 1. THOMAS P.VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, PALLATHUSSERIL HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. 2. THOMAS P.THOMAS, S/O.VARGHESE, PALLATHUSSERIL HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35942 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.311 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Kottayam. Previously the plaintiff had moved another writ petition before this court challenging the dismissal of an application moved for correcting some mistake regarding the extent of the property involved in the suit. After hearing both sides, that application was allowed. Such amendment application was filed at the stage when the suit came up in the list for trial. However, noticing that the nature of the amendment canvassed would not cause any prejudice to the defendant, it was allowed by the judgment rendered in the writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioner/plaintiff, after carrying out that amendment, moved for a survey commission by deputing an advocate. That application was turned down by the learned Munsiff. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition. W.P.(C).No.35942 OF 2009 Page numbers 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Munsiff, I find no interference is called for. There is no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff declining the request for a survey commission on the basis of the amendment permitted to be carried out pursuant to the judgment rendered by this court in the previous writ petition. Writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv W.P.(C).No.35942 OF 2009 Page numbers