IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26381 of 2008(N) -------------------------- I.A.No.499/2008 IN O.S.No.100/2006 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PERINTHALMANNA ---------------------- PETITIONERS: ----------------- 1. KUNHIMUHAMMED HAJI, S/o. VAZATHODI KUNHIPPU HAJI, VAZATHODI HOUSE, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, AVUNHIKKADU DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. 2. ALI, S/o. KUHIMUHAMMED HAJI, VAZATHODI HOUSE, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, AVUNHIKKADU DESAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. ABDURAHIMAN, S/o.CHATHULLI SAIDALI, CHATHULLI HOUSE, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, AVUNHIKKADU DESAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. 2. MUHAMMADALI, S/o.CHATHULLI SAIDALI, CHATHULLI HOUSE, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, AVUNHIKKADU DESAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. 3. USMAN, S/o.CHATHULLI SAIDALI, CHATHULLI HOUSE, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, AVUNHIKKADU DESAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. 4. ABDUL NASAR, S/o.CHATHULLI SAIDALI, CHATHULLI HOUSE, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, AVUNHIKKADU DESAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. 5. ABUBACKER HAJI, S/o.CHATHULLI SAIDALI, CHATHULLI HOUSE, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, AVUNHIKKADU DESAM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26381 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd September, 2008. J U D G M E N T This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P4 order whereunder Munsiff Magistrate, Perinthalmanna, allowed I.A.No.499 of 2008 in O.S.No.100 of 2006, an application filed under Rule 17 of Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the plaint. Under Ext.P4 oder, learned Munsiff allowed the application holding that amendment of the plaint sought for is necessary for a just decision of the case. 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that by the amendment, nature of the suit and identity of the property is changed and hence it should not be allowed. On hearing the learned counsel and on going through Ext.P4 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity W.P.(C) No.26381/2008 2 warranting interference. The fact that by Ext.P4 order, the application for amendment was allowed does not mean that case of the plaintiffs introduced by the amendment has been accepted by the court below. It also does not mean that identity of the property as amended was upheld by the court. These are facts to be decided by the court on evidence. Petitioners are entitled to file an additional written statement taking up all the contentions available in the suit and necessarily that questions are to be decided in the suit. Writ petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.