IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27084 of 2010() ------------------------- OS.359/2009 of I ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SHAJI THOMAS, MANJANGAL HOUSE KAKKANADU LANE, KESAVADASAPURAM ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA SMT.S.MEERA RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. DAMIYAN LOUIS, SACRED HEART HOUSE AMBALANTHIN MOOLA, CHOWARA P O KOTTUKKAL DESOM, KOTTUKKAL VILLAGE 2. ZIRIL MORAIS, St. JACOB HOUSE PULLUVILAL, PULLUVILA P O KARUMKULAM VILLAGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.27084 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 31st day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.359 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-I, Neyyattinkara. That is a suit for prohibitory injunction instituted by the respondents contending that the suit property belonged to and is in the possession of respondents in the manner stated in the plaint. Petitioner resisted the suit contending that description of the suit property is not correct, it is not identifiable in the way it is scheduled in the plaint and that going by the averment in the plaint relief is sought for in respect of the property belonging to and in the possession of petitioner where he has invested huge amounts for starting a hotel project. In the meantime an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to measure the property with the assistance of a Surveyor. There were several proceedings concerning the said application and unable to execute the warrant, Advocate Commissioner surrendered the order at one stage. This court as per Ext.P5, judgment disposed of the writ petitions filed by the parties issuing certain directions to the learned Munsiff as to the manner of execution of warrant of commission. Complaint of petitioner is that W.P.C.No.27084 of 2010 : 2 : thereafter with intention to further prolong the proceeding respondents have filed Ext.P6, application for amendment of the plaint to incorporate a new schedule in the plaint and seeking a declaration of alleged right of easement by way of prescription over the new schedule property and also seeking amendment to the existing schedule to incorporate new survey numbers which were not mentioned in the plaint. Petitioner states that he has serious objection to the amendment sought for. Petitioner seeks a declaration that Ext.P6, application is illegal and not maintainable. 2. In so far as learned Munsiff is yet to decide Ext.P6, application it is not necessary for this court to interfere in the matter. I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to raise all his objection to Ext.P6, application. Learned Munsiff will consider those objections and pass appropriate order in the matter as provided under law. With the above observation this writ petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-