IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26511 of 2008(F) -------------------------- OS.835/2006 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MARY, W/O. GEORGE, MALIAKKAL, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAE, FROM MALIYEKKAL PERUMPADUMBU MURI, PALLURUTHY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JANAKI AMMA, D/O. KARTHIYAYINI AMMA, MANAZHATHU VEEDU, AROOR MURI, AROOR VILLAGE. 2. RAJAMMA, -DO- 3. DASAN, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, KALATHIL, -DO- 4. DINESAN, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, -DO- 5. VANAJA, D/O. KUTTAPPAN, -DO- ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE FOR R3-5 SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN FOR R3-5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.26511/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED NIL. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 1.4.2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 3.6.2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.7.2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.26511 OF 2008 (F) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P4 order and allow Ext.P2 petition. ii. to stay all further proceedings in the suit till the disposal of the writ petition. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.835 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Cherthala. Suit was one for declaration of right of easement and for consequential injunction, and the respondents are the defendants. The defendants resisted the suit claim filing a written statement. Petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for amending the WPC.26511/08 2 plaint to furnish better particulars on the claim of easement canvassed. That application was objected to by the defendants. The learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, dismissed the amendment application vide Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was omission to furnish specific particulars of right of easement by prescription, and so much so, an amendment application was found necessary. In that context, according to the counsel, Ext.P2 application was moved for amendment of the plaint. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the amendment application moved was devoid of any merit, and it was rightly and correctly rejected by the court below. Perusing Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Munsiff with reference to the submissions made, I find no prejudice or hardship, which could not be compensated in WPC.26511/08 3 terms of money, would be caused to the respondents by allowing the proposed amendment. By way of amendment, better particulars of the right of easement claimed are sought to be incorporated in the plaint, and nothing more. It is directed that Ext.P4 order shall stand set aside subject to the petitioner/plaintiff paying a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the respondents/defendants within a period of two weeks from the date of this judgment. Cost ordered shall be given to the counsel appearing for the respondents before this Court within the time stipulated, and a memo filed on or before 23.10.2009. Writ petition is disposed with the above directions. Post for report on 26.10.2009. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp