Sukumara Pillai vs Suja on 24 June, 2009

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sukumara Pillai vs Suja on 24 June, 2009

Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16972 of 2009(O)


1. SUKUMARA PILLAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUJA, D/O. VARIJAKSHAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SOBHANAN, S/O. LAKSHMANAN,

3. VISWAMBHARAN, S/O. LAKSHMANAN,

4. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,

5. GEETHA, W/O. VISWAMBHARAN,

6. SUMATHY, W/O. LATE VARIJAKSHAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.SATHIQ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :24/06/2009

 O R D E R
                    S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                   -----------------------------------
                   W.P.(C).No.16972 of 2009 - O
                    ---------------------------------
               Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009

                            J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is filed against the dismissal of the application moved by the plaintiff for correcting the judgment under Sections 151, 152 and 153 CPC setting forth a case that an inadvertent mistake had crept in the judgment. Ext.P4 is the copy of the application moved for the said correction. The learned Munsiff after examining the merit of that petition found that it is unworthy of merit holding that there was no mistake in the judgment. Ext.P5 is the copy of that order passed by the learned Munsiff. Impeaching the correctness and propriety of that order petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner.

3. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1659/2000 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit was one for a declaration and for fixation of boundary. Plaintiff sought for declaration of his right over B schedule pathway described in the plaint, which has a width of 5 links, and for putting up a boundary W.P.(C).No.16972 of 2009 - O 2 beside that pathway. Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff making it clear that the "boundary wall should be within the 5 links width pathway". Petitioner/plaintiff has filed the petition for correction of the judgment setting forth a case that the court committed a mistake in stating that the boundary wall should be within the 5 links width pathway. After going though the judgment, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3, I find no merit in the case advanced by the plaintiff. The correction applied for was rightly and correctly repelled by the learned Munsiff since, the operative portion of the judgment granting the relief in the suit it is made crystal clear that the boundary wall should be within the 5 links width pathway. The operative portion reads thus:

"It is made clear that the boundary wall should be within the 5 links width pathway."

In fact by filing this petition, the petitioner seeks to nullify that portion of the judgment over which no doubt arise, or any mistake has crept in.

The writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

bkn/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court