IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37853 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.584/2003 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. KRISHNA PILLAI, LEKSHMI VILASATHU VEEDU, VANDADUMPOIKA, VETTINADU MURI, VEMBAYAN VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PATHMAKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, LEKSHMI VILASATHU VEEDU, VANDADUMPOIKA, VETTINADU MURI, VEMBAYAN VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MADHAVAN PILLAI, KRISHNA BHAVAN, VETTINADU MURI, VEMBAYAN VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAJAMMA, W/O. MADHAVAN PILLAI, KRISHNA BHAVAN, VETTINADU MURI, VEMBAYAN VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SOMALATHA, D/O. RAJAMMA, KRISHNA BHAVAN, VETTINADU MURI, VEMBAYAN VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37853 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.584 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Nedumangad. Suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and injunction happened to be dismissed for default on account their nonappearance when the case was listed for trial. Petitioners moved an application for restoring the suit dismissed for default. That application too happened to be dismissed for default. Another application moved afresh to restore the previous application too was later dismissed for default. Challenging that order the present writ petition has been filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether an order has been passed on merits or for default in an application under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC, petitioner can challenge that order by way of an appeal as provided under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) of the CPC. The above rule says only of rejecting an application moved under Order IX Rule 9 W.P.(C).No.37853 of 2009 - O 2 and not disposal of an application moved on merits. Petitioner can work out his remedies by preferring an appeal, if so advised, against the orders dismissing his applications for restoring the suit. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-