V. Ramkumar, J.

1. Heard both sides.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.262/1993 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha. The said suit was one for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property on the strength of title and also for a, perpetual injunction in respect of a portion of the property. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the decree, the petitioners filed A.S.No.67/1998 before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. While the appeal was pending, they moved I.A.No.864/2004 for amendment of the plaint under O.VI R.17 C.P.C. The said application was dismissed as per Ext.P3 order inter alia on the ground that it was belated. It is the said order, which is assailed in this Writ Petition.

3. Placing strong reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Karthiayani & Ors. V. Ramanathan & Ors., 2005(2)KLT115 = 2005(1)KLJ730, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India will not lie against the dismissal of a petition for amendment' of plaint under O.VI R.17 C.P.C. I do not think that the said decision can survive the subsequent ruling of