IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13906 of 2008(E) -------------------------- OS.65/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.SUN VALLEY GOLDEN RESORTS, VYTHIRI, REP. BY ONE OF ITS DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY, SRI.THOMAS, S/O.SEBASTIAN, KUNNATHIDAVAKA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., VYTHIRI. R1 BY SHRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13906 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st May, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.65/2005, on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta. The suit was dismissed on 31.1.2008. Consequently electric supply was disconnected by the respondent. Petitioner filed I.A.No.231/2008 before trial court for a direction to the respondent to restore the power supply. Under Ext.P7 order, learned Munsiff directed respondent to restore power supply to the petitioner on deposit of Rs.2 lakhs, holding that he is liable to deposit the disputed portion of the bills. The case of the petitioner is that under Ext.P6, he had deposited Rs.1,25,000/= on 25.4.2007, but it was not taken into consideration by the learned Munsiff. The learned Munsiff passed Ext.P7 order only for the reason that petitioner was not furnished with a certified copy of the judgment to enable him to challenge the same. 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that if Ext.P7 order is allowed to stand, it would W.P.(C) No.13906/08 2 prevent petitioner from getting proper relief from the first appellate court. I do not find that Ext.P7 order will in any way affect the right of the petitioner to get appropriate order from the first appellate court. As the suit was dismissed and petitioner did not deposit the disputed portion of the amount claimed from him, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in Ext.P7 order warranting interference. Petition is therefore dismissed. It is made clear that dismissal of the writ petition will not affect the right of the petitioner to get appropriate order in the first appeal. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.