Kerala High Court
Geetha vs Palancheri Ramakrishnan Nair on 4 June, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2017/13TH CHAITHRA, 1939
OP(C).No. 1573 of 2013 (O)
---------------------------
OS.NO.431/2010 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT-II, KOZHIKODE
....
PETITIONER(S)/PLAINTIFFS:
------------------------
1. GEETHA,
D/O MAYANKOTT CHALIL CHANDUKUTTY, KUTTIKKAATTOOR
AMSOM DESOM, P.O, KUTTIKKATTOR, KOZHIKODE
2. SUDHA,
D/O MAYANKOTT CHALIL CHANDUKUTTY,
KUTTIKKATTOOR AMSOM DEOSM, P.O, KUTTIKKATTOOR,
KOZHIKODE
3. REENA,
W/O LATE KAYANKOTT CHALIL NADARAJAN,
PUTHUKUDY HOUSE, AANAKUZHIKKARA,
KUTTAKKATTOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O, KUTTIKKATTOOR,
KOZHIKODE
4. P. RAJEESH,
S/O LATE NADARAJAN, PUTHUKUDY HOUSE, AANAKUZHIKKARA,
KUTTAKKATTOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O, KUTTIKKATTOOR,
KOZHIKODE
5. P. REMEESH,
S/O LATE NADARAJAN, PUTHUKUDY HOUSE, AANAKUZHIKKARA,
KUTTAKKATTOOR AMSOM DEOSM, P.O, KUTTIKKATTOOR,
KOZHIKODE
6. P. RENEESH,
S/O LATE NADARAJAN, PUTHUKUDY HOUSE, AANAKUZHIKKARA,
KUTTAKKATTOOR AMSOM DEOSM, P.O, KUTTIKKATTOOR,
KOZHIKODE
7. A. ASOKAN,
S/O MAYANKOTT CHALIL VINODINI, AREEKAL HOSUE,
AANAKUZHIKKARA, KUTTAKKATTOOR AMSOM DEOSM,
P.O. KUTTIKKATTOOR, KOZHIKODE.
Msv/
-2-
-2-
OP(C).No. 1573 of 2013 (O)
---------------------------
8. OLLAKKAL BALAN,
H/0 MAYANKOTT CHALIL REMANI, P.O, KUNNAMANGLAM,
KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE
9. OLLAKKAL BIJI,
D/O REMANI, P.O. KUNNAMANGLAM, KUNNAMANGLAM AMSOM
DESOM, KOZHIKODE
10. OLLAKKAL SHAJI,
S/O. REMANI, P.O. KUNNAMANGLAM, KUNNAMANGLAM AMSOM
DESOM, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.M.MANJU
SRI.K.R.RANJITH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. PALANCHERI RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR,
S/O PALANCHERI LAKSHMI AMMA, KUTTIKKATTOOR AMSOM,
DEOSM, P.O. KUTTIKKATTOOR, KOZHIKODE - 673 008.
2. CHULLIYIL SUNANDAKAUMAR,
S/O BALAN, 17/1966, CHULLIYIL HOUSE,
KASABA AMSOM DEOSM, KOZHIKODE - 673 002.
3. KELAN VEETTIL SINI,
S/O BHASKARAN, CHALAPPURAM, KASABA AMSOM DEOSM,
KOZHIKODE - 673 002.
4. AREEKKAL BABURAJAN,
S/O PURUNGAN, AREEKKAL HOUSE, KUTTIKKATTOOR AMSOM
DESOM, P.O. KUTTIKKATTOOR, KOZHIKODE - 673 008.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH
SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
OP(C).No. 1573 of 2013 (O)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO 431 OF 2010 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
DATED 04-06-2010
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 08-09-2010 IN OS
NO 431 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
MUNSIFF-II KOZHIKODE DATED 08-09-2010
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 08-09-2010 IN
OS NO 431 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
MUNSIFF II KOZHIKDOE DATED 14-01-2013
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION, I.A
NO 1563 OF 2013 IN O.S NO 431 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II KOZHIKODE DATED 30-03-2013
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO 1563 OF 2013 IN O.S NO 431
OF 2010 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE
DATED 01-04-2013
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
--------------------------------------------------
O.P.(C) No. 1573 of 2013
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2017
J U D G M E N T
1.Petitioners are the plaintiffs in a suit for injunction. They filed an application to amend the description schedule. It appears that the obvious attempt now made is based on the commission report, which indicates that the property could not be identified. Now, the petitioners want to correct the description and take out a further commission. The court below dismissed the application, stating that this will cause substantial prejudice to the defendants. It is in this context, the petitioners have come up before this Court.
2.I do not understand how the defendants would be affected if the plaint schedule property is identified as claimed by the plaintiffs. No right of the defendants would be divested on account of correcting the O.P.(C) No. 1573 of 2013 ..2..
description of the property.
3.Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the application for amendment is allowed. The plaintiffs shall also be at liberty to take out commission to identify the property in tune with the corrected schedule.
4.The original petition is disposed of, as above.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE bka/-