IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18620 of 2009(O)
1. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, SON OF KESAVA PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MANIKKANAMPARAMBIL TRUST,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :28/07/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.18620 OF 2009 (O)
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
i. to set aside the order Ext.P3 and to grant
the petitioner one month’s time for filing the
written statement in the suit;
ii. to issue such other reliefs as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit in the circumstances of
this case.
2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.277/2007 on the
file of the Munsiff Court, Vaikom. Suit is one for recovery of
possession, and the respondent is the plaintiff.
Petitioner/defendant did not file the written statement within
the time and his request for enlargement of time was declined.
He sought for one month more for filing the written statement
and the learned Munsiff vide Ext.P3 order dismissed his
petition. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached
WPC.18620/09 2
in the petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested
with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. The
learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly submitted
that he is not standing on technical objections. Suit has been
filed for recovery of possession after obtaining a sale
certificate in a court auction since the auction purchaser
failed to take steps for delivery within one year from the issue
of that certificate, submits the counsel. The learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that since a connected suit was
pending before another court and as the documents already
filed in that suit were to be looked into, extension of one
month’s time was sought for to file the written statement.
Whatever that be, having regard to the fact that the written
statement was not filed within the time fixed by the court, I
find the lapse can be condoned only on compensating the
injury to the plaintiff on account of prolongation of the case
delaying its final disposal. As a condition precedent for
acceptance of the written statement of the
WPC.18620/09 3
petitioner/defendant, by granting him an extension of time, he
shall pay a cost of Rs.750/- to the plaintiff. Cost so ordered
shall be paid to the counsel appearing for the respondent in
this Court within one week and a memo filed within ten days
from the date of this judgment. If cost is paid,
petitioner/defendant will be allowed to file his written
statement within an extended period of three weeks from the
date of this judgment. On payment of cost and filing of
written statement within the time fixed, the court below shall
accept the written statement, after passing appropriate
orders, in case, he had already been set ex parte consequent
to nonfiling of the statement earlier and proceed with the trial
of the case in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed
as above.
For report, post after ten days.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp