IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15391 of 2009(O)
1. ABDUL MUTHALIB, S/O.MUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ALEY, W/O.MATHAI, KAROTTUPULLOLI HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. MATHAI, S/O.MATHAI,KAROTTUPULLOLI HOUSE,
3. K.M.THOMAS, S/O.MATHAI,KAROTTUPULLOLI
4. K.M.MATHEW, S/O.MATHAI, KAROTTUPULLOLI
5. K.M.CHACKO, S/O.MATHAI,KAROTTUPULLOLI
6. AMMINI SEBASTIAN, D/O.MATHAI,
7. K.M.KURIAN, S/O.MATHAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :05/06/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.15391 of 2009 - O
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
“i) To call for the records which lead to the issuance
of Ext.P3 and to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari
or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing
the same.
ii) To issue appropriate directions to the court below
to allow Exts.P1 and P2 without imposing any cost and
to restore O.S.No.218/1996 on its file for disposal on
merits.”
2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.NO.218/1996 on the
file of Sub Court, Pala which was dismissed for default for the
absence of plaintiff on the date of hearing. He moved an
application for restoration of suit under Order IX Rule 9 CPC. It
was allowed on terms. The terms having not been complied with
the petition was dismissed. Producing the order passed by the
court imposing cost but not the subsequent order dismissing the
suit, petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ/order to restore his suit to
file.
W.P.(C).Nos.15391 of 2009 – O
2
3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner.
4. Having regard to the submissions made, I find that the
petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal
against the order passed dismissing his application for restoration
of the suit, and as such the writ petition is not maintainable. The
writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the
petitioner to take appropriate proceedings to challenge the order
passed dismissing his application for restoring the suit, if so
advised. The period during which the writ petition was
prosecuted will be taken into account by the court below, if any
appeal is filed, and appropriate orders will be passed with respect
to condonation of delay following the provisions covered by
Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
The writ petition is dismissed as indicated above.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-