IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29427 of 2008(C)
1. DHARMARAJAN, S/O.ANTIKKOTTU NARAYANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KOODALMANIKYAM DEVASWOM, IRINJALAKUDA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.BINOY RAM
For Respondent :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :27/01/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 29427 of 2008 C
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Under challenge in this writ petition under Article 227
filed by the defendant in a suit for recovery of possession with
arrears of rent is the judgment of the appellate court confirming
the decision of the trial court to dismiss the application filed by the
petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The view taken by the Munsiff as well as the learned Sub Judge
concurrently is that the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 are not
attracted. It is noticed by them that all through the trial the
petitioner/defendant was participating. His counsel cross
examined PW1, the witness of the plaintiff, and his counsel was
present and addressed arguments also. The only thing of default
is that the defendant/petitioner did not adduce any evidence.
Having gauged the judgment of the appellate court by the
parameters which are applicable to the exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227, I do not find any warrant for invoking
that jurisdiction for correcting the judgment of the appellate court.
WPC.29427/08
: 2 :
I dismiss the writ petition holding that there is no warrant for
invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction in this particular case. At
the same time, I notice that the petitioner is conducting sale of
pooja articles in a room in close proximity to the Koodalmanikyam
temple at Irinjalakuda. I notice that eventhough this Court did not
grant stay, the respondent/plaintiff was not very enthusiastic on
levying execution of the decree. Therefore, I direct the learned
Munsiff to explore the possibilities of a settlement between the
parties before he effects delivery of the building in question. I also
make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the
petitioner pursuing other legal remedies available to him against
the judgments and decrees which were sought to be set aside.
(PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
aks