SURESH Vs. BABY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXHIBIT P5, order passed by the learned Munsiff, Karunagappally on I.A. No.2885 of 2011 in O.S. No.303 of 2009 is under challenge at the instance of the defendants in the suit.

(2.) THE respondent filed the suit seeking a decree for prohibitory injunction against petitioners trespassing into the suit property. Petitioners filed written statement and a counter claim seeking a declaration of right of prescription over the counter claim B schedule property for access to the counter claim A schedule property belonging to them and for mandatory injunction for removal of a compound wall allegedly constructed by the respondent (recently) over the counter claim B schedule property. The parties went to trial. After closure of evidence and as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, even after submission of argument notes petitioners noticed that there was an inadvertent mistake in mentioning the extent and survey number of the B schedule property in the counter claim. To correct that mistake they filed I.A. No.2885 of 2011. In the affidavit in support of the said application it is stated that the mistake happened when the computer print out was taken and that the survey number and extent of the counter claim A schedule property happened to be stated for the counter claim B schedule property also.

(3.) THE learned Munsiff found acceptance for the objection raised by the respondent and by Ext.P5, order dismissed the application.