IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 CRP.No. 195 of 2009 ----------------------------- CMA.NO.10/2001 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM, OS.NO.28/1997 OF MUNSIFF- MAGISTRATE'S COURT,MANNARKAD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER/2ND DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS VARGHESE, S/O.SAMUEL VARGHESE, VALIYAVEETTIL, AGALI AMSOM, DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & 1ST DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.S.RAMASWAMY, S/O.SUBBAYYA SETTIAR, WEST STREET, POONJAYIDAYAR, MELMUGHAM VILLAGE, PARAMATHI VELOOR TALUK, SELAM DISTRICT. 2. PAZHANIYAMMA, W/O.MURUKESAN SETTIAR, AGALI AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. R1 BY ADVS. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` C.R.P. No. 195 OF 2009 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 O R D E R The revision is directed against the dismissal of a C.M.Appeal moved with a delay condonation petition. The cause for condonation of delay was found not satisfactory and as such that petition was dismissed with the result the appeal was also dismissed. Impeaching the correctness of that order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court. 2. Petitioner is the 2nd defendant in OS.No.28/97 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Mannarkad. Suit was one for specific performance and 1st respondent was the plaintiff. The petitioner after entering appearance in the suit, did not defend the case with the result he was declared exparte. An exparte decree was passed against him. A petition moved under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the exparte decree with a petition to condone delay of 386 days after enquiry was dismissed, against which the C.M.Appeal was preferred, that too with delay petition. The order passed by the court CRP.195/09 : 2 : dismissing that appeal is now challenged in the writ petition. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. After having heard the counsel at length and considering the facts and circumstances involved, I find the petitioner has not made out any justifiable cause to interfere with the order passed by the court below. The revision is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. to Judge