IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17105 of 2008(J) -------------------------- OS.41/1998 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I .................... PETITIONER: ------------ UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 57, S/O.JANAKI AMMA, MOOLAMVALLY KEZHALATH HOUSE, EDAKKAD AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT: ------------- PANKAJAVALLY, AGED 56, D/O.MEENAKSHI AMMA, THAYYIL HOUSE, EDAKKAD AMSOM A AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 9 /6 /2008 , THE COURT ON 09/06/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO.17105 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.41/1998 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kozhikode. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for a direction to the Munsiff to issue certified copy of the order in I.A.1919/2008, which is an application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 to review the order allowing an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment of the plaint sought for by respondent plaintiff. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that I.A.1919/2008 was dismissed without a speaking order and though the order was passed on 2.6.2008 and petitioner applied for a certified copy of the order, it was W.P.(C) 17105/2008 2 not furnished and the suit is posted for evidence today and if without getting an opportunity to challenge the order, evidence is to be recorded it would prejudice the petitioner and therefore there may be a direction to the Munsiff to issue certified copy of the order as well as to stay of further proceedings till certified copy is issued. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find it just or proper to stay the further proceedings in the suit as sought for. In fact if petitioner is aggrieved by the order allowing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, that order is to be challenged. Petitioner is not challenging that order. Instead he filed a petition to review that order and that review petition was dismissed. If in fact grievance of the petitioner is against the order allowing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, his attempt should have been to challenge that order and not the order dismissing the review petition. Therefore the suit W.P.(C) 17105/2008 3 cannot be stayed. But there will be a direction to Munsiff, Kozhikode to issue certified copy of order in I.A.1919/2008, if petitioner has applied a certified copy of the application without delay. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006