IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 OP(C).No. 2567 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.315/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT.,VADAKKANCHERRY .................... PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. K.P.VASUDEVAN,AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.KATTAMKOTTIRI KRISHNAN,PATTIPARAMBU DESOM, THIRUVILLWAMALA VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. K.P.CHANDRIKA,AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.VASUDEVAN,PATTIPARAMBU DESOM,THIRUVILLWAMALA VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. RAMAKRISHNAN,AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.CHORAKKATTIL VELU,PATTIPARAMBU DESOM, THIRUVILLWAMALA VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680503. 2. KRISHNAKUMARI,AGED 47,W/O.CHORAKATTIL RAMAKRISHNAN,PATTIPARAMBU DESOM,THIRUVILLWAMALA VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680503. 3. A.S.RAMANKUTTY,AGED 64 YEARS, S/O0.AMMAPARAMBIL SANKARAN,PATTIPARAMBU DESOM, THIRUVILLWAMALA VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680503. 4. VIJAYAMMA @ SANTHA,W/O -DO- RAMANKUTTY, PATTIPARAMBU DESOM,THIRUVILLWAMALA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680503. ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL FOR R3,4 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 2567 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.645 OF 2011 IN O.S.NO.315 OF 2008 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKKANCHERRY EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 15.03.2011 IN I.A.NO.645 OF 2011 IN O.S.NO.315 OF 2008 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKKANCHERRY RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.2567 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 06th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Plaintiffs in O.S.No.315 of 2008 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Vadakkanchery are the petitioners before me challenging Ext.P2, order refusing amendment of the plaint as requested for in Ext.P1, application. Originally, petitioners sued for recovery of possession of plaint B schedule on the strength of title and for other reliefs. The Advocate Commissioner submitted report and plan after measuring the properties. Petitioners filed I.A.No.515 of 2011 to incorporate plaint C schedule which according to the petitioners was also trespassed upon by the respondents as revealed from the report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. There was also a prayer for recovery of possession of plaint C schedule. That application was allowed by the learned Munsiff. When the case was again posted for trial in the list, petitioners came with Ext.P1, application of further amendment of the plaint, this time, for amendment of northern boundary of plaint C schedule to make it in tune with the report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner (as learned counsel submits). That application was resisted by the O.P(C).No.2567 of 2011 -: 2 :- respondents and the learned Munsiff by Ext.P2, order dismissed it holding that the application is belated, attempt is to prolong the proceeding and that it was open to the petitioners to seek the amendment prayed for in Ext.P1, application in I.A.No.515 of2011. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that Ext.P1, application was presented even before commencement of recording evidence and that it was only appropriate that the request for amendment was allowed. 3. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4/defendants 3 and 4 contended that the application is highly belated and that there is no justification why the present request for amendment was not included in I.A.No.515 of 2011. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that the amendment sought for if allowed would only create confusion regarding the report and plan. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that pursuant to the amendment if allowed, petitioners will not ask for a remission or setting aside of the report and plan already on record, nor ask for any further details to be called for through the Advocate Commissioner. 5. In the light of the above submission, I am inclined to think that the application has to be decided by the learned Munsiff on merit. If there is undue delay on the part of O.P(C).No.2567 of 2011 -: 3 :- petitioners in seeking amendment and thereby the contesting respondents are put to difficulty, it is open to the learned Munsiff to impose cost on petitioners for such belated request for amendment. Resultantly this original petition is allowed and Ext.P2, order is set aside. Ext.P1, application (I.A.No.645 of 2011 in O.S.No.315 of 2008 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Vadakkanchery) is remitted to the learned Munsiff for fresh decision on merit, having regard to the circumstances which I have stated above and subject to the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners and referred to, in paragraph 4, above. Sd/- (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-