IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 126 of 2008() --------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.10247/2007 IN O.S.NO.1618 OF 2005 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM DTD. 14/12/2007) REVISION PETITIONER: PETITIONERS-PLAINTIFFS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.K.MOHANDAS, S/O./LATE N.R.USHA, AGED 40, RESIDING AT KARIVELIL HOUSE, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKADU P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK, MULAVUKADU VILLAGE. 2. K.K.MANOHAR LAL, S/O.LATE N.R.USHA, AGED 38, RESIDING AT KARIVELIL HOUSE, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKADU P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK, MULAVUKADU VILLAGE. 3. K.K.MALINI, D/O.LATE N.R.USHA, AGED 31, RESIDING AT KARIVELIL HOUSE, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKADU P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK, MULAVUKADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJAN, S/O.LATE KESAVAN, AGED ABOUT 52, NEDUKATTIL, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKAD P.O. 2. OMANA, D/O.LATE KESAVAN, AGED ABOUT 43, NEDUKATTIL, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKAD P.O. 3. SATHYAN, S/O.LATE KESAVAN, AGED ABOUT 37, NEDUKATTIL, PONNARIMANGALAM, MULAVUKAD P.O. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.377/2008 IN C.R.P.NO.126/2008 DISMISSED 12/02/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 126 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Ernakulam in I.A.10247/07 in O.S.1618/05. It was an application filed by the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit. A perusal of the order would reveal that they had sought for a decree for declaration that the plaintiffs have perfected title over the plaint B schedule property by adverse possession and imitation. It is also stated that no relief is sought for in respect of the plaint C schedule property. Now, after the evidence is over they want to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh case. The Court did not find that the said request was reasonable under Order 23 of the CPC and it is not a formal defect that is attempted to be cured. The Court observed that if it is a formal defect, “There is only a need to amend that portion in the plaint.” Therefore I feel I need not interfere with the order passed by the Court below but a direction is given when an application for amendment is filed by the revision CRP NO. 126 of 2008 -:2:- petitioner it may be considered in the back drop of refusal of permission to withdraw the suit and if really it is necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties that may be considered after hearing both sides and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-