IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 11310 of 2009(O) -------------------------------------- OS.71/2006 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BIJU, S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, AKSHAYATHIL, KARAMOODU,KALLAYAM,VATTAPPARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN MR.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- SUDHAKARAN, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU,KEEZHATTINPURA, PANAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.J.JAYAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 11310/2009-O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUB COURT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT IN TH SAID I.A. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.990/2008 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/11/2008 IN I.A.NO.990/2008 IN O.S.NO.71/2006 OF THE SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.11310 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 4th 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 set aside Ext.P4 order and pass appropriate orders/directions allowing the petitioner to pay/deposit cost of Rs.1,000/- or appropriate amount as a condition for setting aside the ex parte decree passed by the Sub Court, Nedumangad in O.S.No.71/2006, to secure the ends of justice. ii) to issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Against the petitioner, an ex parte decree was passed in a suit for realisation of money. Application moved by him for setting aside the ex parte decree was allowed on terms with direction to deposit the sum ordered within the stipulated time. Petitioner applied for enlargement of time and it was WPC.11310/2009 2 not allowed. Consequently, the application moved by him for setting aside the ex parte decree stood dismissed. Now he has approached this Court invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for reviewing the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, dismissing his petition moved under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. Petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the order as provided under Order XLIII Rule (1) (d) of CPC. When an appeal is provided the writ petition filed by him for the reliefs claimed by him is not entertainable. Without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to prefer the appeal against the order impugned, if so advised, the writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 23rd March, 2009