IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 32856 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.2711/2002 IN I.A.NO.8831/09 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- BABU,S/O.ARANGASSERI JOSE, PERAMANGALAM VILLAGE & DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- RRANCIS,S/O.ARANGASSERI VAREED, PERAMANGALAM VILLAGE & DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.N.J.JOHNSON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32856 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the original of Ext.P9 order. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Principal Munsiff, Thrissur to allow the amendment application (Ext.P7) and to dispose of the suit accordingly. iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.2711 of 2002 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction, and the respondent is the W.P.(C).No.32856 OF 2009 Page numbers plaintiff. Suit claim was resisted by the respondent/defendant filing a written statement. An application for amending the plaint was moved by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking an additional relief for fixation of boundary. That application was objected to by the respondent. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides dismissed that application vide Ext.P9 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P9 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 on both sides. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides and perusing the exhibits produced, more particularly the order impugned, and also Ext.P6 judgment rendered by this court in a previous writ petition, I find none of the reliefs canvassed by the petitioner/plaintiff can be granted. Previously when the objections filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to the commission report and plan W.P.(C).No.32856 OF 2009 Page numbers collected in the suit were turned down by the court below, he had preferred a writ petition before this court and it was disposed by Ext.P6 judgment dated 12/01/2009. This court had directed the court below to consider the merit of the objections canvassed by the petitioner to the commission report at the trial irrespective of the previous order passed overruling his objections. Pursuant to such directions issued in Ext.P6 judgment, it is noticed the petitioner moved Ext.P7 amendment application seeking an additional relief of fixation of boundary nearly ten months later when the case was again included in the list for trial. It is seen from Ext.P6 judgment also that the previous writ petition was filed at a time the case was included earlier in the special list. Suit for injunction, it is seen, has been instituted as early in 2002. Taking note of Ext.P6 judgment rendered by this court and the long delay in moving the amendment application for an additional relief to be incorporated in the plaint, I find, if at all the plaintiff apprehends that the suit is likely to file on account of some formal defect, it is open to him to seek for W.P.(C).No.32856 OF 2009 Page numbers permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. At the fag end, when trial of the case is scheduled, ie, more than once, the application moved for amendment was rightly and correctly not entertained by the court below, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P9 order. Writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv