IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1160 of 2009(K) ------------------------------------------- OS.216/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY .................... PETITIONER: ROSAMMA, ARAYIL HOUSE, KOTTAMURI BHAGOM, THRIKODITHANAM VILLAGE,CHANGANACHERRY, REP.BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EAPPEN ANTONY. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN SRI.JOMY GEORGE RESPONDENTS: 1. CHACKO JOSEPH, CHENNITHALA,THEKKEVEEDU, THRIKODITHANAM P.O, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. THRESIAMMA JOSEPH, CHENNITHALA, THEKKEVEEDU, THRIKODITHANAM P.O, CHANGANACHERRY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.1160 of 2009 K -------------------------- JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. 2. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that Item No.1 property belongs to her and that at the time of construction of the compound wall, contractor had been instructed to construct the compound wall on the east and south of Item No.1 scheduled property only after leaving out a property having a width of two feet for passage on the eastern and southern sides, but that when the Commissioner filed report, it is understood that on the eastern side an extent of 8 sq.m. and on the southern side 14 sq.m. are left out. 3. All the same, there is no mention at all either in the amendment application or in the affidavit filed therewith to the effect that more extent has been left out either on the eastern side or on the southern side of Item No.1 property. Description of the property in square metre, WPC 1160/09 2 referring to the area, has no bearing when the petitioner/plaintiff has no case that property having an extent of more than two feet width has been left out for pathway, disregarding the instructions given to the contractor. Thus, there is no merit in the contention that more extent has been left out on the eastern and southern sides of the plaint schedule property. 4. It is worthy to note that the suit has come up for trial in the special list and stands posted to tomorrow. It is then that the petitioner/ plaintiff has come up with this writ petition assailing Exhibit P10 order dismissing Exhibit P9 amendment application. It is also worthy to note that the plaintiff had, in an earlier application, sought to withdraw the suit with leave to institute a fresh suit and as leave was not granted, she was making efforts to amend the plaint. These are all matters to be done before the suit is included for trial in the special list and not at the fag end. WPC 1160/09 3 The suit is one of the year 2003. It appears that attempt of the petitioner is to protract the dismissal of the suit somehow or the other. However, as observed above, I do not see any merit also in Exhibit P9 application, which was dismissed by Exhibit P10 order impugned in this writ petition. This writ petition is, hence, dismissed. 12th January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv