IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24317 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/07/2009 IN IA 664/2009 IN OS.321/2007 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. LILLY, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. DEVASSYKUTTY, PUTHENKUDY HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE. 2. TEENA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O. DEVASSYKUTTY, PUTHENKUDY HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE. 3. MERIAN, AGED 25 YEARS, DEVASSYKUTTY, PUTHENKUDY HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE. 4. CLAIR, AGED 19 YEARS, DEVASSYKUTTY, PUTHENKUDY HOUSE, CHERANELLOOR KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.G.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- WILSON, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O. SANRU, MANIKKATHAN HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24317 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P5 order, set aside the same and allow Ext.P3 application as prayed for. ii) Issue such other writs, orders or directions that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S No.321 of 2007 on the file of the Sub court, Perumbavoor. Suit is for specific performance of W.P.(C).No.24317 OF 2009 Page numbers an agreement of sale, and the respondent was the plaintiff. Specific performance was declined by the court, but the alternative relief of refund of the advance sale price was allowed. While allowing the decree for refunding price, plaintiff was also awarded the cost of the suit for the entire suit claim. Petitioner / defendant moved an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for correcting cost portion in the decree. The learned Sub Judge after hearing both sides dismissed that application. Ext.P5 is the copy of that order so passed by the learned Sub judge. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P5 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made W.P.(C).No.24317 OF 2009 Page numbers and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented , I find that no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. I find no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P5 order passed by the court below declining the request of the petitioner to correct the decree passed invoking Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But, I make it clear that Ext.P5 order will not stand in way of the petitioner in seeking appropriate relief before the appropriate forum as provided by law. Reserving the right of the petitioner to seek appropriate relief as provided by law, if so advised, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv