IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20440 of 2009(O) -------------------------- I.A.NOS.472 & 473/2008 IN OS.461/2003 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- P.S.JAYACHANDRAN, KAILAS, THAKARAPARAMBU ROAD, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL, MR.N.P.PRAJEESH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. RAJAMMA, D/O.SARASWATHY, WORKING AS SWEEPER, GOVERNMENT WOMEN'S COLLEGE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SHAJI.K.C., S/O.CHELLAPPAN, B.L.BHAVAN, KULAKANDIYOORKONAM, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. L.BINU LEKHA, D/O.LALITHA, B.L.BHAVAN, KULAKANDIYOORKONAM, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20440 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S 461/2003 against the order passed by the learned First Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram imposing a cost of Rs.4,000/- as a condition precedent for restoring his suit dismissed for default after condoning the delay of 20 days. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel and the facts and circumstances presented I find no notice of the petition to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. This court cannot sit in judgment under its supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as to the propriety and correctness of the quantum of cost awarded by a W.P.(C).No.20440 OF 2009 2 court especially in a matter like the one covered by the present proceedings in which a suit dismissed for default was restored after condoning the delay. If at all the petitioner has any genuine grievance that the cost awarded is excessive, he should move a review petition before the court concerned showing that cause, if any, for reducing the cost awarded. If any such application is moved within a span of 15 days from the date of this judgment untrammelled by any of the observations made in its earlier order dated 23/06/2009, the court below shall pass appropriate orders. Subject to the above observations the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv