IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 507 of 2011(O) ------------------------ OS.194/2006 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER ------------------ T.OOMMAN PANICKER, RESIDING AT TOPS MANNER, PANAVELI, VETTIKKAVALA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, FROM- KOCHUPUTHEN VEEDU, PANAVELI, VETTIKKAVALA VILLAGE,KOTTARAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR SRI.P.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. T.D.ALEXANDER, S/O.VARGHESE DAVID, T.V.COTTAGE, KIZHAKKEKARA MURI, KOTTARAKKARA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK (DIED). 2. SARAMMA ALEXANDER, W/O.T.D.ALEXANDER, T.V.COTTAGE, KIZHAKKEKARA MURI, KOTTARAKARA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, PIN 691 506. 3. SUNIL ALEXANDER, S/O.T.D.ALEXANDER, T.V.COTTAGE, KIZHAKKEKARA MURI, KOTTARAKAR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, PIN 691 506. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.(Civil) No.507 of 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.194 of 2006 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Kottarakkara. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 31.1.2008. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1479 of 2010 to set aside the ex-parte decree. It is stated that the said application is pending. 2. Meanwhile, execution proceedings were initiated for realisation of the decree amount. An extent of 25 cents of land belonging to the petitioner was sold in court auction for a sum of Rs.9,94,322/-. The petitioner filed E.A.No.182 of 2010 under Rule 90 of Order 21 C.P.C. to set aside the sale. E.A.No.182 of 2010 was dismissed for default on 6.1.2011, which is challenged in the Original Petition. 3. When an application under Order 21 of Rule 90 is O.P.(C)No.507/2011 2 dismissed for default, the remedy of the petitioner is to file an application for restoration under Rule 106 of Order 21 C.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after filing this Original Petition, the petitioner filed an application under Rule 106 of Order 21 before the executing court. The order dismissing the application under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. for default cannot ordinarily be challenged in an Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy. In the present case, the petitioner has resorted to that remedy though it was done after filing the Original Petition. I do not find any ground to entertain the Original Petition. It is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl