IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31741 of 2008(D) -------------------------- OS.53/2005 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.U.ANIL KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.P.R.UNNI, PONNANKERIYIL HOUSE, PERUMPALLY, NJARAKKAL P.O BY ADV. MR.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. P.R.LEELA, AGED 73 YEARS, D/O.LATE RAVUNNY AND W/O.LATE PADMANABHAN, RESIDING AT POOTHALATH HOUSE, MALIPURAM P.O. 2. P.R.MANI, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.LATE P.R.UNNI, RESIDING AT PONNKERIYIL HOUSE, PERUMPALLY, NJARAKKAL P.O. 3. MRS.MINI SUNIL, AGED 33 YEARS, C/O.SUNIL.T.P., SANTHIGIRI, ASHRAMAM, KOLIYAKOD P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 4. MRS.SEENA SAJEEV, AGED 29 YEARS, W/O.SAJEEV, KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, NORTH KALAMASSERY. 5. MRS.DHANY KISHORE, AGED 23 YEARS, KORALAKKAL HOUSE, CHIRAKKAKOM, VARAPUZHA. R1 BY ADVS.MR.BABU KARUKAPADATH, SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU, MR.JAGAN GEORGE, MR.K.A.NOUSHAD, MR.P.G.PRAMOD. R2 TO R5 BY ADVS. MR.T.JEEJAN, SMT.S.RAKHEE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.31741/2008 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION I.A.NO.142/08 IN O.S.53/05. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUB COURT KOCHI DTD. 25/09/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 31741 OF 2008 D ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed against an order passed dismissing the application moved for condoning delay in filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The petitioner faced with an exparte order was directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- as a pre- condition for condoning the delay in allowing the application for setting aside the exparte decree. Challenging the correctness and propriety of that order, he has filed the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the copy of the order impugned in the writ petition. The order is dated 25.9.2008. From the facts and circumstances presented and hearing the counsel, I find the petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy of preferring an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the CPC against the order under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. He has to WPC.31741/08 : 2 : work out his remedies as provided by law. The writ petition challenging the order passed on the delay petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, Writ petition is dismissed. (S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) aks