IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27084 of 2010()
1. SHAJI THOMAS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DAMIYAN LOUIS AND ANOTHER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :31/08/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.C.No.27084 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this 31st day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.359 of 2009 of the court
of learned Additional Munsiff-I, Neyyattinkara. That is a suit for
prohibitory injunction instituted by the respondents contending
that the suit property belonged to and is in the possession of
respondents in the manner stated in the plaint. Petitioner resisted
the suit contending that description of the suit property is not
correct, it is not identifiable in the way it is scheduled in the plaint
and that going by the averment in the plaint relief is sought for in
respect of the property belonging to and in the possession of
petitioner where he has invested huge amounts for starting a hotel
project. In the meantime an Advocate Commissioner was appointed
to measure the property with the assistance of a Surveyor. There
were several proceedings concerning the said application and
unable to execute the warrant, Advocate Commissioner
surrendered the order at one stage. This court as per Ext.P5,
judgment disposed of the writ petitions filed by the parties issuing
certain directions to the learned Munsiff as to the manner of
execution of warrant of commission. Complaint of petitioner is that
W.P.C.No.27084 of 2010
: 2 :
thereafter with intention to further prolong the proceeding
respondents have filed Ext.P6, application for amendment of the
plaint to incorporate a new schedule in the plaint and seeking a
declaration of alleged right of easement by way of prescription over
the new schedule property and also seeking amendment to the
existing schedule to incorporate new survey numbers which were
not mentioned in the plaint. Petitioner states that he has serious
objection to the amendment sought for. Petitioner seeks a
declaration that Ext.P6, application is illegal and not maintainable.
2. In so far as learned Munsiff is yet to decide Ext.P6,
application it is not necessary for this court to interfere in the
matter. I make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to raise
all his objection to Ext.P6, application. Learned Munsiff will
consider those objections and pass appropriate order in the matter
as provided under law.
With the above observation this writ petition is closed.
(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)
Sbna/-