IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 35149 of 2007(H) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN IA 1808/07 IN OS.210/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.N.JYOTHI KUMARI, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.LATE K.P.RAGHAVA PODUVAL, RAMANTHALI AMSOM DESOM AND NOW AT MALAKKALLU, KALLAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.KALAKKALLU. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.P.KAMALAKSHI AMMA, W/O.LATE APPUKUTTAN NAIR, RESIDING AT RAMANTHALI AMSOM DESOM, RALIPARAMBA TALUK, P.O.RAMANTHALI. 2. K.P.HAREESH, S/O.LATE APPUKUTTAN NAIR, RESIDING AT RAMANTHALI AMSOM DESOM, RALIPARAMBA TALUK, P.O.RAMANTHALI. 3. K.P.SUNIL, S/O.LATE APPUKUTTAN NAIR, RESIDING AT RAMANTHALI AMSOM DESOM, RALIPARAMBA TALUK, P.O.RAMANTHALI. ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 35149/07. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1808/07 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PAYYANNUR. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1808/07 IN O.S.NO.210/99. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.35149 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is one of the plaintiffs in O.S. No.210/99 before the Munsiff's Court, Payyannur. The suit was one for mandatory injunction, permanent prohibitory injunction and for damages. The plaint schedule property was 13.5 cents in R.S. No.176/12 of Ramanthali Village. The defendants had also filed O.S.No.214/99 against the petitioner. A commissioner was deputed by the Court for measuring the property. The Commissioner, on measurement, found that the suit property is actually having an extent of 14.696 cents, out of which, 13.215 cents are included in R.S. No. 176/12, 0.222 cents are included in R.S. No.126/24, 1.259 cents are included in R.S. No.126/24 and 1.259 cents are included in R.S.No.176/11 and 176/22. The petitioner sought amendment of the plaint seeking to include the additional property also as part of the plaint scheduled properties. The application for amendment was dismissed. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court challenging the order dismissing the application for amendment, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P1 application for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. That petition was dismissed by Ext.P2 order. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 order. According to the petitioner, in view of the Supreme Court decision in KANDAPAZHA NADAR AND OTHsERS v. 2 CHITRAGANIAMMAL AND OTHERS [2007 (7) SCC 65], a withdrawal of a suit without an adjudication does not constitute a decree under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the petitioner has a right to file another suit after withdrawing the earlier suit. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the lower court could not have validly rejected the petitioner's claim for withdrawing the suit with liberty to file a fresh one. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the petitioner's attempt is a dubious tactic for curing the defect of an admission in the pliant itself and the lower court rightly rejected the application. I am of opinion that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. In the same, this Court cannot interfere with the orders itself. This Court can only look into whether the manner in which the same has been passed is correct or not. The petitioner cannot also be permitted to do something which she could not do directly, indirectly. I do not find any error apparent on the record in the order. Taking into account the circumstances revealed, I am of opinion that the petitioner has not made out a case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3