IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22146 of 2010(O) -------------------------- CMA NO.3/2009 F ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, IRINJALAKUDA OS.178/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.R.JACOB, S/O.CHEMMASSERY RAPHAEL, CHENDAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- JOSE, S/O.AKKARAKKARAN LONAPPAN, IRINJALAKUDA, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22146 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT Appellant in C.M.A.No.3 of 2009 pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Irinjalakkuda is the petitioner before me. He applied for setting aside the exparte decree passed against him in O.S.No.178 of 2001 of the Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda. That application was dismissed as it was barred by limitation and the learned Sub Judge thought that reasons stated by the appellant for condonation of delay are not sufficient. Dismissal of the application to set aside exparte decree is under challenge in C.M.A.No.3 of 2009. According to the petitioner, Presiding Officer of the Additional District Court is not sitting from 01.07.2010 onwards and hence petitioner was not able to get relief in the application for stay of execution of decree preferred C.M.A.3 of 2009. Grievance of petitioner is that in the meantime respondent is taking steps to execute the exparte decree which if executed, petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury. 2. Assuming that Presiding Officer of Additional District Court, Irinjalakkuda is not sitting as the petitioner states, petitioner is not without any remedy under the Code. The court holding full charge of that court can consider the application filed by petitioner. In case such full charge is not given to any other court it is also open to the petitioner to move the learned Principal District WP(C) No.22146/2010 2 Judge, Thrissur under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) to withdraw C.M.A.No.3 of 2009 and the application of stay and seek appropriate relief since Sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Code makes it clear that for the purpose of the said Section the Additional District Judge shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Principal District Judge. There is no reason why petitioner should not resort to those remedies rather than rushing to this Court with a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is closed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to seek appropriate relief as above stated. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks