IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 2536 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.339/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALEYAMMA IPE, VARAMPINAKATHU HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM MURI, NIRANAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BABU ABRAHAM, AYRUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PUTHENCAVU, CHENGANNUR, PIN 689123. 2. BINOY ABRAHAM, AYRUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PUTHENCAVU, CHENGANNUR, PIN 689123. 3. SARAMMA RAJI ABRAHAM, AYRUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PUTHENCAVU, CHENGANNUR, PIN 689123. 4. ANNAMMA RAJU, CHULLIYIL HOUSE, MOOLAVATTOM, PANACHICKAD.P.O, PANACHICKAD TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 5. REV.A.NINAN OOMMEN, AYRUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KURAVANAKONAM, KAVADIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON FOR R2 & R4 SMT.LOVELY SAMSON FOR R2 & R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 2594 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.2536/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT OS 339/2007 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHENGANNUR EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS 339/2007 EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT OS 196/2008 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHENGANNUR EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION IN IA 11/2010 EXT.P4(a) PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA 11/2010 EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION IA NO.21/2010 EXT.P5(a) PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION IA NO.22/2010 EXT.P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA 21/2010 EXTP6(a) PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA 22/2010 EXT.P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 13/1/2010 //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.2536 & 2594 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Ext.P7, common order in the respective Writ Petitions are under challenge. Petitioner (common in the Writ Petitions) along with three others filed O.S.No.339 of 2007 in the court of learned Munsiff, Chengannur. Though two items of properties are scheduled in the plaint relief is sought for only as against item No.1 - a declaration by title and adverse possession and prohibitory injunction. Defendant No.4 in O.S.No.339 of 2007 filed O.S.No.196 of 2008 in the same court in respect of the same property and sought a declaration by title and recovery of possession against plaintiffs in O.S.No.339 of 2007. While the suit was pending plaintiffs in O.S.No.339 of 2007 filed application for amendment of plaint. An application was made by the defendants in O.S.No.196 of 2008 for amendment of the written statement. The request was to correct a mistake in the extent of item Nos.1 and 2 and to add a sub division in the survey number. Applications were opposed by the defendants in O.S.No.339 of 2007 and plaintiff in O.S.No.196 of 2008. Learned Munsiff vide Ext.P7, common order dismissed those applications holding that when a declaration of title by adverse possession is claimed by petitioners/plaintiffs, they should have been definite about details of the property and its extent and that the applications are filed belatedly. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that dismissal of the applications is not correct. Learned counsel for respondents WP(C)Nos.2536 & 2594/2010 2 maintains that even the receipts for payment of revenue on the basis of which correction was sought for do not support petitioner as stated in the applications for amendment. It is stated that there is no explanation for the delay in filing the applications. 2. Item No.1 of plaint schedule in O.S.No.339 of 2007 (also referred to in the written statement in O.S.No.196 of 2008) is described as 23 cents in old survey No.4/50 (equivalent to 8.70 ares) and item No.2 is described as 21 cents in old survey No.4/49 (equivalent to 8.70 ares). That is sought to be corrected as 22 cents (in each item) in survey No.4/49 and 50 (equivalent to 8.30 ares). In otherwords amendment sought is only a correction of extent in each item, description of area by ares and addition of a sub division in the survey number. There is no change to the identity and boundaries of item Nos.1 and 2. In the circumstances I am not persuaded to think that the amendment sought for if allowed will work out any prejudice to the respondents. The amendment if allowed does not also alter the nature of the suit or defence, as the case may be. 3. True the applications are belated. But according to the petitioner it is only when the relevant revenue records are traced out that she learnt about the mistake. There is no reason to reject that explanation. In the circumstances I am inclined to allow the applications which were dismissed by the learned Munsiff vide Ext.P7, common order. WP(C)Nos.2536 & 2594/2010 3 Resultantly these Writ Petitions are allowed in the following lines: i. Ext.P7, common order in both Writ Petitions are set aside. I.A.No.11 of 2010 in O.S.No.339 of 2007 and I.A.Nos.21 of 2010 and 22 of 2010 in O.S.N.196 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Chengannur will stand allowed. ii. Petitioner shall carry out amendment of the plaint in O.S.No.339 of 2007 and the written statement in O.S.No.196 of 2008 within fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in the court below or within such time as the learned Munsiff may extent. Defendants in O.S.No.339 of 2007 will get opportunity to file additional written statement in answer to the amended plaint. I.A.No.11629 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No.2536 of 2010 and I.A.No.11630 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No.2594 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks