IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 OP(C).No. 2872 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- [OS.NO.89/2010 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHITTUR] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- MANI, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 51 YEARS, THUMBIKKAL, PUZHAPPARA, ELAVANCHERRY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.ANILKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. PONNU, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT MODAMKADU, ELEVANCHERRY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK-678 101. 2. VIJAYAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT MODAMKADU, ELEVANCHERRY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK-678 101. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(C).NO.2872/2011-O: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 89/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A. 1644/11. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A. NO.1774/11. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.1774/2011 DTD. 17/08/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.2872 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 31st day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the second plaintiff in O.S.No.89 of 2010 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Chittur. That is a suit for recovery of possession of the suit property. Petitioner filed that suit along with his son, claiming that the suit property belongs to the son, first plaintiff as per document No.3247 of 2000. Originally in the plaint schedule, item No.1 was described as 1½ cents and item No.2, as in document No.3247 of 2000. The Advocate Commissioner submitted Ext.P2, report on 24.03.2011. That was followed by petitioner and first plaintiff filing Ext.P3, application for amendment on 01.08.2011 to delete item No.1 and change the northern and western boundary of item No.2. That application was allowed on 05.08.2011. Again, on 12.08.2011 petitioner and first plaintiff filed I.A.No.1774 of 2011 for a further amendment of the plaint, this time to make the plaint schedule in tune with the report and plan (Ext.P2 dated 24.03.2011). The request was to mention item No.1 referred in the plaint as 18 cents to 47 and 7/8 cents and 1½ cents as 11.36 cents. A further amendment was also prayed for as paragraph 5 (A). That application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff as per Ext.P5, order. O.P(C).No.2872 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. Learned counsel submitted that I.A.No.1774 of 2011 ought to have been allowed. It is also pointed out that it is by way of an inadvertent mistake that amendment was not incorporated in the plaint. 3. Learned Munsiff has observed in Ext.P5, order that the case was posted in the list on 04.12.2010 and that day, petitioner and the first plaintiff filed I.A.No.2744 of 2010 for appointment of a commission which was allowed. Commissioner filed Ext.P2, report dated 24.03.2011. Respondents filed additional written statement. Then came I.A.No.1774 of 2011 for amendment which was allowed. A few days later, the second application for amendment was filed. From the submission of learned counsel it is revealed that the case is posted for trial in the list this day. 4. I do not find reason to interfere with the order, but I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to challenge correctness of the impugned order in an appeal that may arise from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.89 of 2010, if petitioner is entitled to that course. With the above observation this original petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-