SONY GEORGE Vs. MATHEW ALEXANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.463/2012 on the files of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, has filed this Original Petition impugning Ext.P10 order of the said Court declining the permission to amend the plaint - a copy of which has been produced on record as Ext.P1 - in terms of his plea in I.A.No.473/2018, a copy of which has been appended to this Original Petition as Ext.P8.

(2.) The petitioner says that Ext.P10 order is in error, since all that he wanted was to substitute the word 'necessity' with the word 'prescription', as is appearing in paragraph 1(A) of Ext.P1 plaint. He says that, as is evident from the pleadings contained in the plaint, he has pleaded all the ingredients of an easement by necessity, but that when the plaint was settled, due to an inadvertent error on the part of his counsel, the word 'prescription' was used instead of the word 'easement'. He says that it is in such circumstances, that he prayed that the plaint be allowed to be amended to rectify this apparent mistake; but that the Trial Court dismissed his application holding that the ingredients of an Easement by Necessity has not been properly pleaded. He says that this finding is completely wrong and prays that Ext.P10 be set aside.

(3.) I have heard Sri.Peeyus A. Kottam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Martin Jose, appearing for the respondents.