IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1654 of 2010(O) -------------------------------------- OS.952/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. BABURAJAN, S/O.UNNIRI, PALLIYIL HOUSE, PADIYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SANKARAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, PALLIYIL HOUSE, PADIYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. JAYANANDAN, S/O.GANGADARAN, ERATTU HOUSE, PADIYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. SOMAN, S/O.KUMARAN, KADUKATTU HOUSE, PADIYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CHANDRIKA, W/O.VIJAYAN, CHERUKANDATH HOUSE, PALAZHY, KARAMUCK VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SARASWATHY, W/O.CHANDRADASAN, PALLIYIL HOUSE, PADIYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1654 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Declare that Ext.P6 order of the 1st Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur is the outcome of faulty exercise of jurisdiction conferred upon. ii) issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order quashing Ext.P6 order of the 1st Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur. 2. Petitioners are some of the defendants in O.S No.952 of 2008 on the file of 1st Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Suit was instituted seeking the relief of injunction, but, later, amended for an additional relief of fixation of the eastern and southern boundaries of the suit property. 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the other respondents, codefendents. Challenge raised in the writ petition is against Ext.P6 order passed by the court allowing the amendment sought for by the 1st respondent/plaintiff to seek additional relief of fixation of boundaries as indicated above. W.P.(C).No.1654 OF 2010 Page numbers 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Ext.P6 order and other exhibits tendered in the writ petition, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. The defendants have been proceeded against in the suit not as property owners having common boundaries to the suit property but on the allegation that they are attempting to trespass upon the property with intend to widening an existing road and that being so, the amendment sought for by the plaintiff for fixation of boundary should not have been allowed by the court is the submission of the learned counsel to assail Ext.P6 order. In exercise of visitorial jurisdiction, I find it is not proper for this court to examine the merit of the amendment allowed by the court having regard to the disputed facts presented before the court on the pleading of the parties. Whatever defences available to the petitioners on the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the suit, needless to point out, can be W.P.(C).No.1654 OF 2010 Page numbers canvassed by them in trial. Perusing Ext.P6 order with reference to the submissions made, I find, there is no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the court allowing the amendment application. No interference with Ext.P6 order is called for. Writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv