IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29008 of 2009(O)
1. R.M.SUDARSAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.RAGHAVAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR,
... Respondent
2. R.M.SHYLESH KUMAR, S/O.KARUNAKARAN,
3. CONCORD LEASING AND HIRE PURCHASE LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHARAM.P
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :14/10/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.29008 OF 2009 (O)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.398 of 2007 on
the file of the Munsiff Court -I, Kozhikode. Suit was one for
money, and the 1st respondent was the plaintiff and the 2nd and
3rd respondents, co-defendants. Suit was decreed ex parte.
Petitioner moved an application for setting aside that ex parte
decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
That application was allowed on terms by the learned Munsiff
directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/-
towards the suit claim. Petitioner challenged that order
preferring an appeal before the District Court, Kozhikode.
The learned District Judge modified the order directing the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as cost to the plaintiff
within a period of two weeks. Payment of cost was not made
within the time stipulated. Petitioner moved an application
WPC.29008/09 2
seeking extension of time, after the time provided for payment
expired, stating that since he was laid upon with chickun
guniya, payment could not be made within the time fixed. The
learned District Judge, not being satisfied with the cause
shown, dismissed the application for extension of time. Ext.P3
is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P3
order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having
regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts
and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the
respondents is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with.
The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the cause
canvassed for extension of time, sought for indulgence of this
Court for extension of time to pay the cost ordered as a
condition precedent for setting aside the ex parte decree
passed against him. After going through Ext.P1 order passed
by the learned District Judge, allowing the appeal on terms,
WPC.29008/09 3
and also Ext.P3 order dismissing the application moved by the
petitioner for extension of time, I find, it is not proper and
appropriate for this Court to interfere with Ext.P3 order. The
learned District Judge, after examining the merit of the case
canvassed by the petitioner has come to the conclusion that
there was no bona fides in the cause shown for nonpayment of
the cost within the time ordered. Cost ordered was only
Rs.500/- and the decree was passed as ex parte against the
petitioner two years before also has to be taken into account
in considering the question whether any indulgence can be
shown to the petitioner. I find no impropriety or illegality in
Ext.P3 order passed by the learned District Judge.
Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp