IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28941 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- AS.6/2008 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.M. MATHEW, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, PERINGARA P.O., THIRUVALLA, PIN-689 108. BY ADV. MR.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- P.R. RAGHAVAN, POIKUNNEL HOUSE, PERINGARA MURI, PERINGARA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.28941 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: i. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P2 order. 2. Petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.832 of 2001 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.88 of 2002 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla. Against the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal as A.S.No.6 of 2008 before the Sub Court, Thiruvalla with a petition to condone delay of 396 days. After hearing both sides, the learned Sub Judge allowed the delay petition subject to terms. Propriety and correctness of that order (Ext.P2) is challenged by the WPC.28941/09 2 petitioner/1st defendant contending that no sufficient cause had been made out by the petitioner/appellant to condone the delay, and, further judicial discretion had been improperly exercised in allowing the application. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. True, there is a delay of 396 days in filing the appeal. But according to the petitioner, the delay is much more, about 440 days. Respondent/appellant, it is seen from the order impugned, had produced a certificate showing that he was undergoing treatment during the period and that resulted in delay in presenting the appeal. Whatever that be, perusing Ext.P2 order, I find the court below in exercise of its judicial discretion has condoned the delay subject to condition directing the petitioner/appellant to pay a sum of Rs.500/- to respondents 1 and 2 within the time limit fixed. I find no WPC.28941/09 3 impropriety or illegality in the exercise of judicial discretion exercised by the appellate court. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp