IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2007 / 13TH ASHADHA 1929 WP(C).No. 15367 of 2004(D) ------------------------------------- OS.546/1990 OF PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM ................................................ PETITIONER: ------------------ KUNJU MOHAMMED, OLAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.11/52, OLAYAPARAMBIL NOVELTY LADIES STORES, OLD MUNCIPAL BUS STAND KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.PRAKASH PUTHIADAM SRI.ROSHIN IPE JOSEPH SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. V.D. EDWARD, S/O. DEVASIA, VARKKATTU HOUSE, KARAPUZHA, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE. 2. SMT.FATHIMA BEEVI, D/O. KUNJU BHAVA, NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUNNA KIZHAKKA KARA AND VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. 3. A.M. JALALUDHIN, ANAKULAPARAMBU, THAZHATHANGADY, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE. 4. SMT.MOLLY NINAN, TRAFFIC ASSISTANT INDIAN AIRLINES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. MOBI NINAN, C/O. SMT.MOLLY NINAN, INDIAN AIRLINES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C) NO: 15367/2004 6. JUBY NINAN, C/O. SMT.MOLLY NINAN, INDIAN AIRLINES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. V.G. ARUN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.15367 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 4th July, 2007 JUDGMENT I have heard Mr.Bechu Kurian Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner on the various grounds raised in the Writ Petition. Learned counsel would invite my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Udayan Chinubhai v. R.C.Bali [(1977) 4 S.C.C. 309], the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Bholanath v. Madanmohan (AIR 1988 Calcutta 1) and the judgment of the High Court of Sind in Khudadad v. Moriokhan (AIR 1916 Sind 2) and submit that these judgments will show that the view taken by the learned District Judge on the question of limitation is wrong. The above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are attractive. But at this juncture Mr.T.R.Harikumar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent would point out that the impugned order is only an order on the delay petition and the appeal itself was rejected by the court below. The order rejecting the appeal is yet to be challenged by the writ petitioner. Mr.Bechu Kurian Thomas would now submit that an appeal was attempted to be filed but the same was returned by the Registry on the reason that the remedy lies under the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Counsel sought leave W.P.C.No.15367/04 - 2 - to file a fresh Writ Petition challenging the order or to pursue other proper remedies available to the petitioner. Leave is granted. It appears to me that the remedy of the petitioner under law as settled by the Supreme Court is to file a Second Appeal itself, the petitioner can represent the S.A. which is returned by the Registry to him on the reason that the same is not maintainable. The Writ Petition will stand closed. However in view of the directions given hereinabove, the order of stay presently passed will continue for two more months. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE