IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24548 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- AS.46/2008 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM OS.14/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BABU MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, THACHAMATTOM HOUSE, KUTHUKUZHI P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.DILIP RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- BASIL BABY, S/O.BABY, PAINADATHU HOUSE, IRINGOLE P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24548 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To pass an order setting aside Exhibit p8 order passed by the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. ii) To pass an order dismissing Exhibits P2 to P4 applications.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.14 of 2004 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. Suit is one for money based on a cheque, and respondent is the defendant. Suit was decreed in terms of the plaint. The defendant preferred an appeal as A.S.No.46 of 2008 before the Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. The appeal was allowed setting aside the decree and judgment of the court below remitting the case for fresh consideration directing restoration of three applications moved by the defendant and passing appropriate orders on those applications after hearing both sides. Pursuant to such remission, the learned Munsiff considered the three applications referred to in the judgment of the court below, which had been W.P.(C).No.24548 of 2009 - O 2 filed earlier by the defendant, and, after hearing both sides, allowed those applications. Ext.P8 is the order so passed by the learned Munsiff. In one of the applications covered by Ext.P8 orders the defendant had sought for sending over the cheque for forensic expert and that too was allowed by the learned Munsiff. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P8 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the three applications have not been properly appreciated and considered by the learned Munsiff in accordance with law and Ext.p8 order is erroneous. This Court in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction cannot be expected to examine the correctness of the applications and its entertainability by the trial judge especially, in view of the fact that the appellate court while setting aside the previous judgment and remitting the case had directed the trial court to consider those applications afresh after hearing both sides. If consideration of those applications are not necessary or W.P.(C).No.24548 of 2009 - O 3 for any reason not warranted in the given facts of the case, petitioner should have challenged the remand order passed by the lower appellate court. That has not been done. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner intends to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court. It is open to the petitioner to raise all grounds available in that appeal to challenge the entertainability of the three applications moved by the defendant. Reserving the right of the petitioner to do so, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-