Loading...

Thalayankandi Tharikutty Haji vs Pallipath Shereefa on 20 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Thalayankandi Tharikutty Haji vs Pallipath Shereefa on 20 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23745 of 2009(O)


1. THALAYANKANDI THARIKUTTY HAJI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PALLIPATH SHEREEFA, D/O.ABU HAJI,
                       ...       Respondent

2. PALLIPPATH MAMMAD,

3. KAYAKKUL VALLIPARAMBATH ABU,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.CIBI THOMAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :20/08/2009

 O R D E R
                   S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                   -----------------------------------
                   W.P.(C).No.23745 of 2009 - O
                    ---------------------------------
              Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the

records relating to Ext.P6 and quash the original of

the same.

ii) To declare that the amendment if allowed will

change the entire nature and character of the suit.”

2. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.240 of 2000

on the file of the Munsiff Court, Koothuparambu. The above suit

was filed for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction, by the

first respondent in which he later moved an application for

amending the suit as one for declaration of title and recovery of

possession. Ext.P4 is the copy of that application for

amendment. Though the amendment was objected to by the

petitioner, learned Munsiff allowed the application vide P6 order.

Propriety and correctness of P6 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 learned counsel for the petitioner.

W.P.(C).No.23745 of 2009 – O

2

4. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts

and circumstances presented with reference to P6 order and

other material tendered in the writ petition, I find no notice to the

respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with.

5. The grievance espoused by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the court below has expressed some views over

the plea of limitation canvassed by the defendants which,

ultimately may affect the suit on its disposal on meirt. Perusing

P6 order, I find in examining the question whether the

amendment relate back to the date of suit, or from the date of

allowing it, which alone was canvassed by the defendants as

permissible in the given facts of the case the learned Munsiff has

expressed some views that the plea of limitation canvassed by

the defendants has on no basis. In exercise of visitorial

jurisdiction vested with this Court, I do not propose to examine

the propriety or correctness of the observations made in P6

order. But, I make it clear that the suit has to be disposed of

untrammelled by any of the observations made in P6 order on

the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the parties in support

W.P.(C).No.23745 of 2009 – O

3

of their respective case and the legal principles applicable.

Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is

closed.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.

bkn/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information