IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30482 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.201/2007 of PRL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SREEKALA ASOKAN, W/O.ASOKAN, KOMBATH HOUSE, CHENGALOOR VILLAGE, CHENGALOOR DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. ASOKAN, S/O.KOMBATH DIVAKARAN, KOMBATH HOUSE, CHENGALOOR VILLAGE, CHENGALOOR DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MR.DEEPU LAL MOHAN MR.LEENA MURALI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ANITHA RAGHAVAN, W/O.LATE KANIYAMPARAMBIL RAGHAVAN, VELOOPPADAM DESOM, VARANTHARAPPILLY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. SRIYA RAGHAVAN, D/O.LATE KANIYAMPARAMBIL RAGHAVAN, VELOOPPADAM DESOM, VARANTHARAPPILLY VILLAG, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. THARA THAMPAN, D/O.ADV.M.V.THAMPAN, SOORYA, PARAYIL ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI. 4. MINOR SREERAG, S/O LATE SREEKANTH, SOORYA, PARAYIL ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI. REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER THARA THAMPAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30482 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To declare that Ext.P5 order to the extent it does not specify that the amendment permitted to be made in Ext.P1 plaint regarding the declaratory relief as against sale deed No.1984/2005 of Nellayi S.R.O shall not relate back to the date of plaint, is erroneous and unsustainable in law. ii) To declare that the amendment permitted to be made in Ext.P1 plaint as per Ext.P5 order regarding the declaratory relief as against sale deed No.984/2005 of Nellai S.R.O shall not relate back to the date of plaint and that the said amendment shall be deemed to have been filed on the date on which Ext.P3 application for amendment was filed.” 2. Petitioners are two of the defendants in O.S.No.201 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Irinjalakkuda. Suit was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 for partition of the plaint schedule property. Petitioners and other defendants in the suit filed written statement resisting the suit claim in which among other contentions these petitioners contended that the plaintiffs were parties to a registered sale deed conveying rights over one of the items of plaint properties in their favour. Pursuant thereto W.P.(C).No.30482 of 2009 - O 2 plaintiffs moved an application for amending the plaint seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed referred to in the written statement of the defendants on various grounds impeaching its validity. Petitioners filed objections to that application. The court below after hearing both sides allowed the amendment application vide Ext.P5 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P5 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. 4. At the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as on the date when the amendment application was moved cancellation of the registered sale deed sought for by plaintiff by way of amendment was barred by time and so much so, at the time of hearing of the amendment application the counsel for the petitioner had specifically urged that if at all amendment was allowed, it should be given effect to only from the date when the application was filed before the W.P.(C).No.30482 of 2009 - O 3 court. Without adverting to that aspect, according to the counsel, the court below has passed Ext.P5 order allowing the amendment. Needless to point out, whether the amendment has to be allowed with respect to the date of institution of the suit or from subsequent date as on the date of moving the application for amendment is a matter which lies within the province of the court entertaining and adjudicating upon the merit of the amendment application. If the petitioner is really aggrieved by Ext.P5 order in the sense that the legal objections canvassed by him have not been appreciated by the court below, it is open to him to file a review petition before the court for modification of Ext.P5 order. It is not proper and appropriate for this Court to interfere with Ext.P5 on the ground canvassed by the petitioner. Reserving the right of the petitioner to prefer a review petition as indicated above and leaving it open to the court below to consider and dispose the application, if any filed, on its merit and in accordance with law, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-