IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1498 of 2010(O) -------------------------------------- OS.67/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SUPREME FINANCE & KURIES (P) LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER T.S.SUNIL, S/O.T.V. SARNGADHARAN, P.O.CHENDRAPPINNI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.C.HARIKUMAR, SMT.MOLLY KOSHY. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- T.K. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.KUNJIRAVUNNI, KARAYIL THEKKOOT HOUSE, KAZHIMBRAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1498 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S No. 67 of 2009 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kodungallur. Suit was one for setting aside a sale deed in which a decree was passed exparte against the petitioner. Petitioner, after receiving summons, it is submitted, moved an application for reference of the dispute under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act contending that there is a valid arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant partnership firm. Without passing any order on that application, the court below insisted for filing of a written statement by the petitioner/1st defendant, and later, for the reason no written statement was filed, according to the counsel, the 1st defendant was set exparte. Later, an exparte decree was also passed against the 1st defendant after dismissing the application moved for reference to the arbitration. It is submitted that the order passed by the court declaring the petitioner exparte for the reason of nonfiling of written statement when the firm had already moved an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not proper and correct. Whatever that be, in exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction vested W.P.(C).No. 1498 OF 2010 Page numbers with this court, it is not proper to examine the propriety and correctness of the orders passed by the court in the suit which is stated to have been disposed of finally by passing an exparte decree. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that an application had been moved before the court for setting aside the exparte decree with a petition to condone delay and it awaits consideration. When that be so, at this stage, I find the correctness of the orders impugned in the writ petition has to be avoided by this court in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction. There will be a direction to the learned Munsiff, Kodungallur to dispose of the applications, if any, moved by the petitioner for condonation of delay and for setting aside the exparte decree as expeditiously as possible after hearing both sides and in accordance with law. Writ petition disposed as indicated above. Send a copy to the court concerned forthwith. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv W.P.(C).No. 1498 OF 2010 Page numbers