IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2266 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- OS.252/2005 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.P. ANIL KUMAR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI AGED 38, KAVIL VEEDU,THURUTHIKKARA MURI, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.R.SURAJ KUMAR, MR.N.AJITH. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PROJECT OFFICER KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD,KOLLAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 4. K. DEVAKI AMMA, AGED 68 YEARS SANTHI BHAVANAM, THURUTHIKKARA MURI, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH,SC,KERALA KHADI BOARD. R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2266 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.252 of 2005 on the file of Munsiff Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta. Suit was one for perpetual prohibitory injunction against the State, some public officials and the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board. Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner by issue of a notice under Revenue Recovery Act in respect of some dues realisable as subsidy provided by the Khadi Board lead to the institution of the suit seeking a decree of injunction to restrain the defendants from proceeding against him under the Revenue Recovery Act. An exparte decree was passed in the suit. On the application moved by the State, after hearing both sides, the exparte decree was set aside condoning the delay in moving that application. Challenge in the writ petition is against the order passed by the court below setting aside the exparte decree condoning the delay. W.P.(C).No.2266 OF 2010 Page numbers 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and also the standing counsel for the 1st respondent Khadi Board. A challenge against the impugned order will not lie under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as it is open to the petitioner to file a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure provided is ground to do so. Final order passed by the court had it been decided in favour of the petitioner would have lead to termination of the proceedings in the court below and, so much so, in the given facts of the case, only a revision would lie against the impugned order. Perusing the records, I find that conversion of writ petition into a revision enabling the petitioner to canvass the challenges raised against the impugned order is not warranted where it is seen that an exparte decree had been set aside by the court below on being satisfied that sufficient ground has been made out for setting aside that decree. By setting aside the exparte decree, both sides are given further opportunity to lead evidence and to get a decision on merits. The decree that was granted to the petitioner in the present suit, it has W.P.(C).No.2266 OF 2010 Page numbers been shown, is only a temporary relief to the extent that no Revenue Recovery proceedings can be initiated against him in respect of the notice already issued, which no way interdicted the defendants from proceeding against him by issuing a fresh notice under Revenue Recovery Act. In such a case, the challenge canvassed against the order of the court below setting aside the exparte decree is nothing, but an experimental venture to see whether Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated can be delayed by continuation of the proceedings relating to the exparte decree. I find the writ petition deserves only to be rejected. I do so. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv