IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22523 of 2008(F) -------------------------- OS.273/2004 of PRL.M.C.II, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. MAMIYIL CHINNAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, CHATHODE HOUSE OLAVANNA AMSOM AND DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. MAMIYIL KRISHNANKUTTY S/O.VELAYUDHAN, IN DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.DEEPA V. SRI.N.AJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. C.SIVADASAN, NAMBOODIRI S/O.RAMAN NAMBOODIRI, CHERUPPALERI ILLATH, OLAVANNA AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE 2. E.K.DEVAKI ANTHARJANAM, D/O.RAMAN NAMBOODIRI, EDAKUTTIPURATH MULAPPA ILLATH ERNAD TALUK, AZHINJILAM AMSOM, DESOM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO.22523 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 25th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.273/2004 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kozhikode. Respondents are the plaintiffs. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P6 order passed by learned Munsiff in I.A.2125/2008 an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint. Under Ext.P5 application respondents sought amendment of the plaint based on the report submitted by the Commissioner. Under Ext.P6 order learned Munsiff allowed the petition on payment of cost of Rs.750/-. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that learned Munsiff W.P.(C)22523/2008 2 did not consider proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI introduced by the Amendment Act of 1999 and therefore Ext.P6 order is to be quashed. 4. True in Ext.P6 order learned Munsiff has not considered the effect of proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure. But the question is whether for that reason alone Ext.P6 order is to be quashed. Under the amendment allowed by the learned Munsiff, extent of the property was reduced from the original extent shown in the plaint. On going through Ext.P6 order, Ext.P4 application for amendment as well as Ext.P5 objection filed by the petitioners, I do not find that any prejudice will be caused to respondents by the amendment allowed by the Munsiff. The amendment is necessary for a just decision of the dispute involved in the suit. Petitioners are entitled to file written statement taking up all the contentions available. They are also entitled to challenge Ext.P6 order along with the final judgment, if it goes against them. W.P.(C)22523/2008 3 Writ Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006