IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8409 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- (OS.NO.607/1999 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- P.A. MUSTHAFA, S/O. ABDUL SUKKOOR, AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALIAVEETTIL HOUSE, S.R.M ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -18. BY ADVS. MR.SHIJU VARGHEESE, MR.PRAMOJ ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. V.J. TOMY, S/O. VALIYAPARAMBIL JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. GEORGE VIJU, S/O. VALIYAPRAMBIL FRANCIS, AGED 33 YEARS, BUSINESS, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 3. JOY THOMAS ANTONY ALIAS THOMASON, S/O. VALIYAPARAMBIL ANTONY, AGED 32, BUSINESSMAN, -DO- BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 8409 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to set aside Ext.P6 order by which Rs.5,000/- was directed to be paid as cost for restoration of Execution Application filed by him. 2. Petitioner is the 3rd judgment debtor in E.P. No.363 of 2004 in O.S. No. 607 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam. The property was brought to auction for execution of the decree. Though details are given in the petition, which are not necessary to dispose of this case. 3. Ultimately, the property was sold. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.A. No.541 of 2009 to set aside the sale on the ground that the entire property need not be sold to pay off the decree debt and part of the property is sufficient to pay the decree debt. Whatever that be, E.A. No.541 of 2009 was dismissed for default. The petitioner sought restoration W.P.(C) No. 8409/2010 2 of the same by filing E.A. No.89 of 2010, which was allowed on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. 4. The petitioner relies on a decision of this Court reported in Joseph V. Devassia and another (2007(4) KHC 826 to contends that the cost imposed is on the higher side. The said decision was rendered in a different context and can have no application to facts on this case. 5. Whatever that be, the court below has taken into consideration all aspects while imposing cost. The court below has exercised its judicial discretion. There is nothing to show that the impugned order is illegal. No grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.