IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 18674 of 2004(W) -------------------------- OS.255/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. ANITHA RAJU, REFAKKA BHANUVILASAM BUNGLOW, PUNALUR. 2. MANJU THOMAS, -DO- -DO-...DO.... 3. SUSAN ASHOK, W/O. ASHOK DAVID, -DO- -DO-. 4. ASWIN DAVID, S/O. ASHOK DAVID, MINOR, -DO- -DO-. 5. MATHEW KURIAN ASHOK, MINOR, -DO- -DO-. PETITIONERS 4 AND 5 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, THE 3RD PETITIONER. BY ADV. SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC SRI.K.K.SIVARAMAN SRI.P.C.SIVARAJA PILLAI RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. CHACKO CHACKO, KOITHATRA VEEDU, VILAKKUVATTOM MURI, VALAKKODU VILLAGE. 2. MOLLY, W/O. CHACKO, -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18674/2004 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.255/99 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND SKETCH . EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PETITIN TO AMEND THE PLAINT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE PETITION TO AMEND THE PLAINT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.2290/02 IN O.S.NO.255/99. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.18674 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 16th January, 2008 JUDGMENT Even though Mr.Subhash Syriac, learned counsel for the petitioners has addressed me very strenuously, I am not persuaded to agree that the impugned order passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing the application for amendment filed by the petitioners is vitiated to the extent of warranting correction by this court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution which is invoked only very sparingly and only in exceptional cases. It is seen that the learned Munsiff has considered the relevant aspects of the matter and found that if the application for amendment is allowed, prejudice will be caused to the respondents. It is also seen that the learned Munsiff has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court. I do not find any justification for setting aside Ext.P5 order in the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Even as I confirm Ext.P5, I make it clear that confirmation of Ext.P5 by this court will not stand in the way of the petitioners urging the same grounds in the appeal which they may have to file if the decision of W.P.C.No.18674/04 - 2 - the learned Munsiff in the suit comes to be against them. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE