IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18747 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------ OS.151/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ BIJU, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, KARIKILATTUTHARA HOUSE, ULLALA KARA, THALYAZHAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM KARA. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT: ------------------- DIVAKARAN, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, THOMANATHIL HOUSE, THOTTAKAKOM KARA, THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON 03/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dkr S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 18747 OF 2009 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the defendant in OS.No.151/08 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Vaikom. The above suit was one for money for realization of a sum of Rs.5,000/- with interest. Suit was decreed exparte. Petitioners moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC with a petition to condone the delay. The delay petition was dismissed with the result the petition for setting aside the exparte also turned down. Exts.P6 and P7 are the orders passed by the court below dismissing the application for setting aside the exparte decree and the delay petition respectively. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of Exts.P6 and P7 orders, the writ petition is filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 o the Constitution of India. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented with reference to Exts.P6 and P7 orders, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the respondent decree holder WPC.18747/09 : 2 : has initiated execution proceedings and warrant has already been issued and it is posted for report tomorrow. Petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the court below disallowing his application for setting aside the decree. It is also to be noted that the principal amount covered by the decree is also Rs.5,000/-. Prima facie, it is evident there is no bonafides in approaching this court with the writ petition invoking its visitorial jurisdiction as if some patent illegality and irregularity has been committed by the court in passing Exts.P6 and P7 orders. I refrain from expressing any opinion on Exts.P6 and P7 which may have its reflection if the petitioner desires to prefer an appeal against those orders. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. to Judge