IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37703 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.65/1978 of MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANOOR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- OUSEPH CHACKO, PONTHALLOOR PARAMBIL, RESIDIG AT AMMANCHERITHADOM, PURAYIDOM, MANNANAM. BY ADV. MR.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. JOSE PHILIP @ JOSEPH THAYYIL, ONASSERIL MANNANAM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE NOW RESIDING AT 22-BONAV CENTRE ABC, ARDSLEY NEW YORK - 10502. 2. PHILIP LUKA, THAYYIL ONASSERIL, MANNANAM KARA, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE. 3. CHACKO PHILOMINA, W/O. OUSEPH CHACKO, PONTHALLOOR PARAMBIL, RESIDING AT AMMANCHERITHDADOM. 4. CHACKO ANNA, D/O. OUSEPH CHACKO, RESIDING AT AMMANCHERITHADOM, PURAYIDOM, MANNANAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37703 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “To issue a writ or order setting aside Ext.P6 and dismissing Ext.P3.” 2. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.65 of 1978 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Ettumanoor. Respondents 1 and 2 are the additional second and third plaintiffs in the above suit which is one for declaration of title and other reliefs. Previously, the suit had been decreed after full fledged trial negativing the contentions raised by the defendants. In the appeal the dismissal of the suit was reversed directing reconsideration of the matter. Some observations were also made in the judgment rendered by the appellate court that the plaintiffs can move for amendment for recovery of possession as well. After remand, the plaintiffs applied for amendment to have additional relief of recovery of possession and also correcting the boundary descriptions of the plaint property. Though objections to that application were filed by the defendant the learned Munsiff passed Ext.P6 order W.P.(C).No.37703 of 2009 - O 2 allowing the amendment application expressing a view that no serious objection was raised to the amendment is the grievance espoused in the writ petition for the reliefs sought for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Ext.P6 is the order passed by the learned Munsiff. Ext.P6 reads thus: “No serious objections. Hence allowed.” Suit is seen instituted as early in 1978 and the amendment application was moved by the plaintiff in 2009, that too based on some observations stated to have been made in the judgment rendered by the appellate court in 1991. Ext.P4 is the copy of the objections purported to have been filed by the petitioner/first defendant to the amendment application. Objections are seen filed on 21.11.2009, the date on which Ext.P6 order was passed by the learned Munsiff. Ext.P5 is the copy of the objections filed by the other set of defendants. It is not clear whether these objections were before the court when the learned Munsiff W.P.(C).No.37703 of 2009 - O 3 considered Ext.P3 application moved by the plaintiffs. Even if the objections were not before the court a reasoned order whether the amendment is allowable or not is expected from the court especially when such an amendment has been sought for long after the judgment rendered by the appellate court. I do not want to express any opinion on the merit or correctness of Ext.P6 order though I find that learned Munsiff was not justified in disposing the application without stating the reasons for allowing the amendment applied for. It is open to the petitioner/first defendant to move a review application against Ext.P6 order in case his objections were canvassed but not considered while passing of Ext.P6 order passed by the learned Munsiff. If any such review petition is filed within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment, and, if the learned Munsiff is satisfied that Ext.P6 order has been passed despite raising of the objections canvassed under Ext.P4 by the first defendant, review petition shall be considered and disposed on merits in accordance with law. W.P.(C).No.37703 of 2009 - O 4 Subject to the observations made above and reserving the right of the petitioner to move a review petition within the time fixed above, the writ petition is disposed. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner and send a copy to the court concerned forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-