IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 29427 of 2008(C) -------------------------- OS.1581/2004 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA CMA.11/2007 of ADDL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- DHARMARAJAN, S/O.ANTIKKOTTU NARAYANAN, PAYAMMAL DESOM, POOMANGALAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KOODALMANIKYAM DEVASWOM, IRINJALAKUDA, REP.BY ADMINISTRATOR. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.29427/08 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PETITION DT 13.10.2005. P2 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN OS.1581/04. P3 COPY OF THE IA.3111/05 IN OS.1581/04. P4 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED IN EXT.P3. P5 COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.311/05. P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA.11/07. P7 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE MINISTER. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29427 of 2008 C ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Under challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 filed by the defendant in a suit for recovery of possession with arrears of rent is the judgment of the appellate court confirming the decision of the trial court to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The view taken by the Munsiff as well as the learned Sub Judge concurrently is that the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 are not attracted. It is noticed by them that all through the trial the petitioner/defendant was participating. His counsel cross examined PW1, the witness of the plaintiff, and his counsel was present and addressed arguments also. The only thing of default is that the defendant/petitioner did not adduce any evidence. Having gauged the judgment of the appellate court by the parameters which are applicable to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, I do not find any warrant for invoking that jurisdiction for correcting the judgment of the appellate court. WPC.29427/08 : 2 : I dismiss the writ petition holding that there is no warrant for invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction in this particular case. At the same time, I notice that the petitioner is conducting sale of pooja articles in a room in close proximity to the Koodalmanikyam temple at Irinjalakuda. I notice that eventhough this Court did not grant stay, the respondent/plaintiff was not very enthusiastic on levying execution of the decree. Therefore, I direct the learned Munsiff to explore the possibilities of a settlement between the parties before he effects delivery of the building in question. I also make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner pursuing other legal remedies available to him against the judgments and decrees which were sought to be set aside. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) aks