IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 2729 of 2009(Y) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA 1857/08 IN OS.154/2008 of MUNSIF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, VELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERUMELY KARA, ERUMELY SOUTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.M.NARENDRA KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. RAJAPPAN PILLAI, VELAMPRAMBIL, ERUMELY KARA, ERUMELY SOUTH VILLAGE. 2. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, KANJICKAL HOUSE, CHETTYKKULANGARA KARA, KANNANMANGALAM NORTH VILLAGE. 3. GOURIKUTTY AMMA, KOLAMTHUNDIYIL, NEELIPLAVU KARA, CHITTAR VILLAGE. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.2729/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. NO.154/08 IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFF, KANJIRA DTD. 28.5.08. P2:- COPY OF THE C1(b) PLAN IN OS. 15/95 IN THE COURT OF ADDL . SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM. P3:- COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DTD. 9.8.08 CONDUCTED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT IN IA. 1857/08 DT. 26.11.08. P5:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN IA. 1857/08 DTD. 9.12.08. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 2.1.09 IN IA. 1857/08 IN OS. 154/08. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 2729 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner calls in question Ext.P6 order, by which the court below has allowed the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs. 2. The respondents instituted O.S.154 of 2008 before the Munsiff's Court, Kanjirappally. Copy of the plaint is marked as Ext.P1. The suit was initially one for injunction and for fixation of boundary. Later the plaintiffs moved I.A.1857 of 2008 seeking to amend the plaint in the light of the subsequent events that had occurred during the pendency of the suit. 3. Petitioners before the court below alleged that during the pendency of the suit the defendant had trespassed into the property and it had become necessary for them to seek additional relief. Accordingly they filed the petition to include the relief of recovery of WPC.2729/2009. 2 possession on the strength of title and that was allowed. The said order is assailed. 4. One fails to understand as to what justification can be given for interfering with the order of the court below. There is no case that the character or nature of the suit is altered or changed. Amendment was sought as a consequence of subsequent events that took place during the pendency of the suit. No grounds are made out to interfere with the order of the court below. This writ petition is dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.