IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5128 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2009 IN IA 392/2008 IN OS.140/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- GOPINATHAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT VELLALATH HOUSE, P.O.CHALAVARA, CHALAVARA VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADVS.MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH MR.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. C.ALI, AGED 40 YEARS,S/O.HAMZA, CHAKKUMKULAM HOUSE,P.O.CHALAVARA, CHALAVARA VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. C.ASSANAR, AGED 37 YEARS,S/O.HAMZA, CHAKKUMKULAM HOUSE,P.O.CHALAVARA, CHALAVARA VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.5128 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 17th February 2010 Judgment This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.12.2009, passed by the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam, in IA No.392/08, i.e., Ext.P2 application. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in OS No.140/07 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit was one for injunction, restraining the defendant from obstructing the user of plaint B schedule property, which was stated as a pathway. It is also claimed in the plaint that Plaint B schedule property is the only means of access for the plaintiffs to enter Plaint A schedule property and therefore, they are entitled to claim easement of necessity. 3.The defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. It is stated that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the properties and the Commissioner, after inspection, has filed a report. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved IA No.392/08 seeking amendment of the plaint, incorporating WPC 5128/10 2 certain additional statements. That petition was allowed by the Court below. It is the said order in IA No.392/08 that is assailed in this Writ Petition. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner in this Petition is that the impugned order has been passed by the Court below without application of mind and therefore, it is unsustainable. He submits that initially, only the claim for easement by necessity was raised and now, various other claims are also put forward. On the above grounds, the petitioner prays for quashing the impugned order. 5. It cannot be said that the character of the suit is changed by the amendment to the suit made by the plaintiffs. As to whether they are entitled to the reliefs sought for in the suit, has to be determined by the Court below while disposing of the suit. No prejudice as such is caused to the writ petitioner by allowing the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs. So, this Petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 5128/10 3 WPC 5128/10 4 WPC 5128/10 5 WPC 5128/10 6 WPC 5128/10 7 WPC 5128/10 8 WPC 5128/10 9 WPC 5128/10 10 WPC 5128/10 11 WPC 5128/10 12 WPC 5128/10 13 WPC 5128/10 14 WPC 5128/10 15 WPC 5128/10 16 WPC 5128/10 17 WPC 5128/10 18 WPC 5128/10 19 P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 5128/10 20