IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24768 of 2008(W)
1. V. VIJAYABALAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
... Respondent
2. THE REGISTRAR,
3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
4. N.M. SIDHIC, S/O. MAKKAR,
For Petitioner :DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY
For Respondent :SRI.M.K.DILEEPAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :15/06/2009
O R D E R
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 15th June, 2009
JUDGMENT
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following reliefs:
1. To call for the records leading to Ext.P3, scrutinise the same and to
set aside Ext.P3 by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or other
appropriate writ, direction or order and to dismiss I.A.No.1945/06 in
A.S.No.165/06 on the file of the 1st Additional District Court,
Ernakulam.
2. To issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this
Honourable Court deems fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.
3. To direct the respondents to pay the cost of the above proceedings
to the petitioner.
2. In a suit filed by the 4th respondent in the Writ Petition as
O.S.No.64/99 for damages, a decree was passed after trial awarding
a sum of Rs.40,000/- as realisable from the defendants 1 to 3, who
are the respondents 1 to 3 in the present petition. As against the
decree and judgment, the defendants who were mulcted with liability
to pay damages preferred an appeal with a petition to condone the
delay of 132 days. Notice of the application being given, the
W.P.C.No.24768/08 – 2 –
respondents entered appearance. After conducting enquiry over the
delay condonation petition, the learned 1st Additional District Judge,
Ernakulam passed an order condoning the delay. Propriety and
correctness of that order is impeached by the petitioner who was the
4th defendant in the suit invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this
court vested under Article 227 of the Constitution.
3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Having regard to
the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I
find that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge for
the time being has not caused any injury to the petitioner as he was a
co-defendant in the suit against whom no decree was passed. Prima
facie, it is seen, petitioner cannot be considered as a person in any
way aggrieved by the order passed by the court below in allowing the
petition for condonation of delay. Further more, the order passed by
the learned Additional District Judge is primarily an order issued
exercise his discretion after taking note of the facts and
circumstances involved. On that count also the impugned order is not
open to challenge unless it is shown that the discretion was
improperly exercised. Petitioner has no such case. Writ Petition is not
entertainable. The Writ Petition is closed.
srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE
W.P.C.No.24768/08 - 3 -