IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15400 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2771/2008 IN OS.320/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ORAVAKKOTTIL HAMZA, S/O AHAMMED, KATTIPPARUTHI AMSOM, VAIKATHUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KARATT VALLAT JANAKI AMMA, D/O.THAYIKKUTTY AMMA, KATTIPPARUTHI AMSOM, VAIKATHUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.KARATT VELLAT JANAKI AMMA, KATTIPPARUTH AMSOM, VAIKATHUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. PRADEEP, S/O.KARATT VELLAT JANAKI AMMA, KATTIPPARUTHI AMSOM, VAIKATHUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. SIVANANDAN, S/O.KARATT VELLAT JANAKI AMMA, KATTIPPARUTHI AMSOM, VAIKATHUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15400 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “To call for the records leading up to Ext.P5 and pass an order modifying the condition imposed by the Munsiff Court, Tirur on allowing Ext.P3 restoration petition.” 2. An application moved by the petitioner to set aside an ex-parte decree passed against him with a petition to condone the delay, it is submitted, was allowed on terms. Costs ordered within the time stipulated were not paid and the petitions were dismissed. Correctness of the orders so passed by the court below are sought to be impeached in this writ petition. 3. As the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy by way of an appeal as provided in the CPC, I find the petition is meritless and it is accordingly dismissed, W.P.(C).No.15400 of 2009 - O 2 without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order dismissing his application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, if so advised. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-