IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No.35270 of 2008 (W) ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IA.1367/2006 IN OS.14/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER: --------------- OMANA AMMA, D/O.SARASWATHY AMMA, GOPA NIVAS, PADANAYARKULANGARA, THEKKUM MURIYIL, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. SANKARAN PILLAI, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, THAYIL VEEDU, PADANAYARKULANGARA THEKKUM MURIYIL, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. HARIKUMAR, ETTEKAL KIZHAKKATHIL, PADANAYARKULANGARA, THEKKUM MURIYIL, KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W. P.C. No.35270 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008 ORDER This Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court on 28/11/08 by judgment delivered in open court. Thereafter, counsel for the petitioner appeared in Chambers and submitted that this Writ Petition be posted at Bench to be spoken to as he wanted to clarify some position. It is thus that the matter has come up today. 2. When it was pointed out to the counsel that Ext.P4 review petition filed in the court below to review the order dt.09/08/06 allowing Order IX Rule 13 petition though filed on 11/08/06, Ext.P6 order was passed thereon only on 31/07/08, after two years as the petitioner was not interested in having an order passed on review petition and still this Writ Petition is filed only on 27/11/08 when the W. P. C. No.35270 of 2008 -2- suit was listed for trial to 01/12/08 though delivery of copy of Ext.P6 impugned order was taken as early as on 22/08/08, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in disposal of the review petition I.A.1367/08 was not on account of any lack of interest shown by the petitioner/plaintiff to obtain an order thereon, but for the reason that in between 11/08/06 and 31/07/08 for a very long period, there was no Munsiff posted at Munsiff's Court, Karunagappally. In view of the said submission, the Registry was directed to ascertain and report about the correctness of the said statement. The Registry after contacting the Munsiff's Court, Karunagappally has reported that there was not a single day during the said period when the Munsiff was not holding sitting in that court. It is further reported that when the case stood W. P. C. No.35270 of 2008 -3- posted to 01/12/08 in the list both parties submitted that there is a chance of settlement and as per request made by the parties, the case stands adjourned to 12/01/09 before the Adalath. In view of the details so collected, I do not find any reason to recall the judgment delivered on 28/11/08. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/- W. P. C. No.35270 of 2008 -4- K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.35270 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard the counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff assailing Ext.P6 order dismissing a Review Petition filed by him to review the order allowing Order IX Rule 13 petition filed by the respondents. Ext.P6 order is passed on Ext.P4 application and is dt.31/07/08. Counsel submits that copy of the said order was taken delivery of on 22/08/08. However, this Writ Petition is filed only on 27/11/08 and it is submitted that the suit stands posted for trial in the special list on 01/12/08. It is further seen that Ext.P1 judgment was passed ex parte on 20/03/06; that the order passed on Order IX Rule 13 petition W. P. C. No.35270 of 2008 -5- is not produced and what is produced as Ext.P6 is an order passed on a review petition to review the order allowing Order IX Rule 13 petition and it is seen from Ext.P5 affidavit that Order IX Rule 13 petition was allowed vide order dt.09/08/06 on I.A.655/06 namely about two years prior to passing of Ext.P6 order. In the circumstances, I do not find any justification for the petitioner in having moved this Writ Petition when the suit is posted for trial in the special list on 01/12/08. The petitioner may contest the suit on merits. 3. This Writ Petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-