IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37250 of 2008(H) -------------------------------------------- IA.226/2007 IN OS.373/2003 of MUSNIFF COURT, ADOOR .................... PETITIONERS: 1. THANKAMMA, KOICKALETHU VEEDU, EDAMALI MURI, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE. 2. SASIKUMAR, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1. PONNAMMA, SREENILAYAM VEEDU, KODUMON MURI, KODUMON VILLAGE. 2. OMANA, HARIBHAVANAM, NJETOOR MURI, KULANADA VILLAGE. 3. RAMAKRISHNAN, KRISHNA VIHAR, KALANJOOR MURI, KALANJOOR VILLAGE. 4. RENUKA DEVI, KOICKALETHU VEEDU, KANJIRAMATTOM MURI, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE. 5. NISHA, -DO- 6. ANOOP, -DO- 7. BALACHANDRAN, KOICKALETHU VEEDU, PARAKKARA MURI, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.37250 of 2008 H -------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioners are 2nd defendant and additional 3rd Defendant in O.S.No. 373/03 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Adoor. Respondents, who are the plaintiffs in the said suit, filed I.A.No.226/07 for amendment of the plaint alleging that they described plaint items 2 and 3 belonging to the petitioners as having an extent of 30 cents each comprised respectively in Sy.Nos.246/4 and 246/5 on an approximation; that they could ascertain the exact extent only on perusing Settlement Deed No.2060/00 executed by defendants in favour of their son additional 3rd defendant Sasikumar, which was produced by the said Sasikumar in the connected suit O.S.No.350/03 and that therefore, they may be permitted to amend the schedule to the plaint correcting the extent of the property under items 2 and 3 respectively as 10.40 Ares and 9.20 Ares. WPC 37250/08 2 Exhibit P7 is the said settlement deed executed by the original defendants in favour of their son Sasikumar and the description of the properties thereunder shows that the extent of property in Sy.No.246/4 is 10.40 Ares and the extent of property in Sy.No. 246/5 is 9.20 Ares. Thus, it is evident that the amendment sought for was to incorporate the exact extent of the property that the defendants have, which is described as items 2 and 3 properties. The court below, probably, after verifying the document as well, has allowed the amendment application vide Exhibit P6 order observing that what is sought to be amended and incorporated is the extent of properties and that will not change the nature and character of the suit. The amendment so allowed by the court below cannot be faulted and for a proper adjudication of the dispute, it was highly necessary to have the plaint amended. This writ petition, assailing Exhibit P6 order allowing the amendment application, is devoid of WPC 37250/08 3 merit in the circumstances and hence, it is dismissed. 17th December, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv