IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13403 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 921/2006 IN OS.507/2002 of M.C.,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- DEVARAJAN, KONGALATHU KANDATHIL VEEDU, ARANMULA VILLAGE,EDAYARANMULA. BY ADV. MR.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. K.K.ASHOKAN,S/O.MADHAVAN, VALUMKAL VEEDU,EDAYARANMULAM, ARANKULA. 2. YESODHARAN,S/O.KOCHUKUNJU, KUMBALANGAL VEEDU, KONNI THAZHAM MURI, KONNI. 3. LALITHA,W/O.YESODHARAN, KUMBALANGAL VEEDU, KONNI THAZHAM MURI, KONNI. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.N.ASHOK KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.13403/2009 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PASSPORT DTD. NIL. P2: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DTD. 22/08/2006. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.921/2006 DTD. 08/11/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 13403 OF 2009 O ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.507/02 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta. Suit was dismissed for default and the petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for restoring the suit under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. The above petition was filed with a petition to condone delay. After enquiry, the petitions were dismissed by the learned Munsiff. Impeaching the correctness and propriety of that order, the writ petition has been filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Respondent has entered appearance. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented and submissions made by the counsel, it is apparent that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of an appeal against the impugned order under Order 43 Rule 1(c) of the CPC. When such a remedy is available to the petitioner, writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained. Reserving the right of the WPC.13403/09 : 2 : petitioner to prefer an appeal, if so advised, against the impugned order, writ petition is dismissed. sd/- (S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. to Judge