IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17761 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/03/2009 IN IA 206/2009 IN OS.26/2004 of MUN-MAGI COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- KUTTAN PILLAI, MADATHILAZHIKATHU PUTHEN VEETTIL, KARIMTHOTTUVA MURIYIL, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.B.MOHANLAL, MR.P.V.DILEEP. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RE-SURVEY, KOLLAM. 3. THE RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 4. SRI.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, MADATHILAZHIKATHU PUTHEN VEETTIL, KARIMTHOTTUVA MURIYIL, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.17761 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.26/2004 on the file of the Munsiff court, Sasthamcottah. The challenge raised in the writ petition is against an order passed by the learned Munsiff dismissing the application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. The learned Munsiff dismissed the application for the reason that it is highly belated as it has been moved after commencement of the trial. Ext.P2 is that order. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Suit filed by the petitioner is one for fixation of boundary. By the proposed amendment, petitioner seeks an additional relief of WPC.17761/09 2 recovery of possession. Suit is seen filed against public officers and also another even without impleading the State as a co-defendant as mandated under Order XXVII Rule 5 of CPC. Probably the public officers might not have any grievance against the fixation of boundary sought for in the suit as instituted. But the additional relief which is now sought for by way of amendment in a suit instituted five years earlier cannot be entertained in the absence of circumstances showing that the petitioner/plaintiff has made out a case to have the exemption covered by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. I am not satisfied that the petitioner had made out a sufficient ground for the amendment applied for. The order passed by the learned Munsiff is not liable to be interfered with exercising the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp WPC.17761/09 3 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009