IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15892 of 2009(O) -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/04/2009 IN IA. 1314 /2008 IN OS.127/2008 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- N. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN PILLAI, PARAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ANNOOR,AMBALATHUMKALA,KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 2. THE PROJECT OFFICER, DISTRICT RURAL AGENCY, K.S.F.E. BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA, E.T.C. P.O.,KOLLAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R),TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY R1, R3 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15892 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P2 from the Sub Court, Kottarakkara and set aside I.A.No.1314/2008 in O.S.No.127/2008. ii) To direct the Sub Court, Kottarakkara to pass fresh orders in Ext.P1, I.A.No.1314/2008 in O.S.No.127/2008 within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.127/2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. Suit was one for injunction restraining the defendants, State and it public officers, from initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner/plaintiff. In the suit, petitioner moved an application for amendment of the plaint. Ext.P1 is the copy of that application. On the date, when the amendment application was taken up, holding that there was no representation for the plaintiff/petitioner, the court below dismissed that application. Ext.P2 is the copy of that order. Propriety, legality and W.P.(C).No.15892 of 2009 - O 2 correctness of that order is impeached in this writ petition. 3. Learned Government Pleader has taken notice for the respondents. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. Whatever be the merits of the case advanced by the petitioner in the light of the statement made in Ext.P2 order that there was no representation when Ext.P1 application was taken up by the court, I find the proper remedy available to the petitioner is to file a review petition, since the case of the petitioner is accepted then, it amounts to an apparent error in the face of Ext.P2 order. Such errors have to be corrected by taking appropriate course as provided by law. Writ petition is not the remedy for rectifying such errors, if any. So without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a review petition against Ext.P2 order, if so advised, this writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-