IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20333 of 2008(U) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 71/2008 IN OS.53/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOLENCHERRRY .................... PETITIONER: ------------ M.V.ABRAHAM, S/O.VARKEY MYKULANGARA HOUSE, KINGINIMATTOM, AIKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNATHUNADU. BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- MAYA JAIMON, W/O.JAIMON VELLAYATH VEETTIL, PERINGOL KARA, KOLENCHERRY. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20333 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T First plaintiff in O.S.No.53 of 2007 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kolenchery, filed this petition challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing I.A.No.71 of 2008, an application filed under Rule 17 of Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint. Under Ext.P6 order, petition was dismissed holding that if the amendment is allowed, it would alter the nature of the claim originally pleaded. 2. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner argued that it is only by mistake the way was described in the plaint as ridge and that mistake alone is sought to be corrected by the amendment and in such circumstances, petition should have been allowed. On hearing the learned counsel and on going through Ext.P6 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The way claimed by the petitioner has been W.P.(C) No.20333/2008 2 specifically described in different paragraphs of the plaint as ridge. Now that admission is sought to be taken away by explaining that it was a mistake. If it is a mistake, petitioner is entitled to explain it at the time of evidence. Petitioner cannot be allowed to take away that admission to the prejudice of the respondent. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.