IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 9301 of 2010(O) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 561/2010 IN OS.294/2009 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER(S): PLAINTIFF ------------------------ M.A.ZOHRA, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.LATE M.AHAMED SAHIB, RESIDING AT 36/2403 A, VATTEKKATTU ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN-17. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI SMT.ANILA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANT ------------------------ 1. MR.SREEKUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.KAMALADEVI, MANAGING PARTNER, COCHIN FIRE TECH, S.N.COMPLEX, NEAR NORTH OVER BRIDGE, ERNAKULAM. 2. MR.CLEMENT, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.LONAN, PARTNER, COCHIN FIRE TECH, S.N.COMPLEX, NEAR NORTH OVER BRIDGE, ERNAKULAM. 3. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN. BY ADV. MR.S.RAMESH BABU, SC (COCHIN CORPORATION) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.9301 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 19th March 2010 Judgment This is a Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P14 order. 2. The petitioner claims to have instituted OS No.294/09 before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from making further construction of the building, blocking the light and wind of the petitioner's property. There was also a prayer for mandatory injunction directing the said defendants to demolish the unauthorised construction on the eastern side of their building. 3. It appears that the defendants filed a counter claim. A commission seems to have taken out and the Commissioner has submitted a report and plan. Pursuant to the submission of the Commissioner's report and plan, the defendants filed Ext.P12 amendment application WPC 9301/10 2 seeking certain modification to their claim. The said application was objected by the petitioner herein by filing Ext.P13 counter affidavit. It is stated that without considering his objections, the Court below allowed the amendment application filed by the defendants, by Ext.P14 order, reserving the right of the third defendant to file additional written statement in case any prejudice is caused to the said defendant. The said order is assailed in this Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has passed the impugned order without applying its mind and therefore, it is unsustainable in law. She also pointed out that the said order directly affects the petitioner. 5. There is no merit in the above contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The third defendant filed objections and the other defendants did not file their objections in time. If the petitioner has any grievance against that portion of the impugned order, it is WPC 9301/10 3 for her to agitate the same before the Court below. No grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order as the discretion exercised by the Court below does not seem to be perverse or irregular. This Writ Petition is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 9301/10 4