IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).No. 229 of 2010(O) ------------------------ E.P.NO.39/2009 IN OS.345/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------- REMA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.MURALEEDHARA KURUP, MURALI BHAVANAM, THIRUVANVANDOOR P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SIVARAMA KURUP, MUTHAYIL VEETTIL, VANAVATHUKKARA, THIRUVANVANDOOR, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- O.P.(C).NO.229 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the original petition is against Ext.P6 order passed by the learned Munsiff, Chengannur, declining the request of the petitioner to review an order passed dismissing his application for setting aside an ex parte decree. Petitioner was the 2nd respondent in a suit for injunction. She remained absent, and later, an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff. An application was moved belatedly to set aside the ex parte decree without even filing an application to condone the delay. That application for setting aside the ex parte decree was turned down by the court. Thereafter, petitioner preferred a review petition along with a petition to condone the delay in moving the ex parte decree. After considering those applications, the learned Munsiff passed a common order (Ext.P6) dismissing both the applications. O.P.(C).No.229/2010 2 Propriety, legality and correctness of Ext.P6 order is challenged invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Perusing Ext.P6 order with reference to the challenges canvassed in the original petition, I find no impropriety in the order passed by the learned Munsiff turning down the review of the previous order. There is no merit in the original petition, and hence, it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp O.P.(C).No.229/2010 3