IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3759 of 2008(V) ------------------------- OS.2848/2004 of I ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EAST FORT P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- DR.A.R.MENON, ROAD-1, RIGHT CROSS RESIDENT'S ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, MRS.PADMINI PANICKER, KAPILA, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3759/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 2848/04 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, TRISSUR. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S. 2848/2004 DATED 21/12/2004 FILED BEFORE -DO-DO. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT DATED 25/9/2004 FILED BY N.V. SEEMA IN I.A 8415/04 IN O.S.2848/04. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION NUMBERED AS I.A.NO. 8424/07. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF COUNTER IN I.A. NO.8424/07 DATED 15/09/2007. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10/10/2007 IN I.A NO. 8424/2007 IN O.S. NO.2848/2004 OF THE 1st ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF OF THRISSUR. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... WP(C).No. 3759 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant and respondent, the plaintiff in O.S.2848 of 2994 on the file of Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Under Ext.P6 order, learned Munsiff permitted respondent/plaintiff to amend the plaint, incorporating a prayer for mandatory injunction. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P6 order, contending that borewell was dug prior to the institution of the suit and still respondent did not seek a decree for mandatory injunction in the suit and trial court should not have permitted the plaint to be amended, incorporating a relief which is barred by limitation as petitioner will be deprived of the plea of limitation. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondent were heard. I find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial court. Petitioner is at liberty to file an additional written statement, raising the plea of limitation as against the additional relief sought for by amendment of the plaint. Petitioner is entitled to agitate that question in the suit. WP(C) 3759/2008 2 Learned Munsiff has necessarily to consider the same in the suit. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-