IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 11387 of 2009(O) -------------------------- CMA.13/2007 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNILDETH, S/O. SREEDHARAN P.K., AGED 43 YEARS, KOCHUVELIYIL HOUSE, PANAVALLY P.O., CHERTHALA, TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. C.D. GOPI, S/O. DIGAMBARAN, SWARAJ BHAVANTHI, THAIKKAL P.O., KADAKKARAPILLY MURI, CHERTHAL. 2. THE KSFE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, KSFE, CHERTHAL. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RR) KSFE, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, K.S.F.E., LTD. FOR R2 & R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.L.SAJEEV THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.11387/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN C.M.A.NO.13/2007 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION IN I.A.NO.888/2007 IN C.M.A.NO.13/2007 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO EXT.P2 PETITION. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.9.2008 IN I.A.NO.888/2007 IN C.M.A.NO.13/2007 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.9.2008 IN C.M.A.NO.13/2007 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.11387 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: i. to call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 orders and set aside the same. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.212 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Cherthala. Suit was one for perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants 2 to 4 from proceeding with revenue recovery proceedings. Suit was dismissed for default. An application moved by the plaintiff for restoration of the suit too was dismissed. Against the order passed dismissing the restoration application, petitioner/plaintiff preferred an appeal with a petition to condone delay. The appellate court, not being satisfied with the cause shown for condonation of delay, dismissed that WPC.11387/09 2 application, with the result, the appeal was also dismissed as time barred. Propriety and correctness of the orders passed by the appellate court are challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 have entered appearance through counsel. Govt.Pleader appears for the 4th respondent. Notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with. I heard the counsel on both sides. Perusing Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Sub Judge with reference to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I find no interference with the conclusions formed by the learned Sub Judge that the petitioner/plaintiff has not made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay is called for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp