Jomi George vs Kunjumon Thomas on 7 October, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 521 of 2010()


1. JOMI GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KUNJUMON THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. GEORGE THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH

 Dated :07/10/2010

 O R D E R
                    THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
           ====================================
                       C.R.P. No.521 of 2010
           ====================================
          Dated this the 07th     day of October, 2010


                             O R D E R

This revision is in challenge of the order passed by learned

Munsiff, Ettumanoor on I.A. No.543 of 2010 in O.S. No.110 of

2009. That is a suit for declaration that respondents have no right

to construct a canal adjoining boundary of the suit property taking

away its lateral support, for fixation of boundary and other reliefs.

In the course of proceeding petitioner filed I.A. No.543 of 2010 for

amendment to incorporate in the plaint a piece of land which

according to the Advocate Commissioner formed part of item No.1

of plaint schedule and required for fixing boundary of plaint item

No.1. That application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff

which is sought to be revised. I have heard learned counsel for

petitioner on maintainability of the Revision.

2. Under Section 115(1) read with its proviso of the Code

of Civil Procedure the High Court could exercise the power of

revision with respect to a case decided by the subordinate court

only if revision if allowed would finally dispose of the suit or other

C.R.P. No.521 of 2010
-: 2 :-

proceeding. Here refusal to allow amendment of plaint is sought

to be reviewed. Allowing or disallowing of that application would

not in any way dispose of the suit. Hence revision is not

maintainable. Remedy if any of petitioner is to challenge the

impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Hence without prejudice to other rights if any of petitioner

this Revision Petition is dismissed.

Registry shall return the original documents produced by

the petitioner to the counsel on request.

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

vsv