IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1420 of 2010(O) ------------------------- OS.54/2006 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER: --------------- ABDUL RASHEED A.K., S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY MUSALIAR, AGED 44, RESIDING AT A.K.M.HOUSE, FAROKE COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 632. BY ADV. MR.K.JAYAKUMAR MR.P.B.KRISHNAN MS.GEETHA P.MENON MR.P.M.NEELAKANDAN RESPONDENT: --------------- MUHAMMED HAJI, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN HAJI, MALIYAKKAL PUTHADAMMAL, KARUMARAKKAD AMSOM, VAZHAKKAD DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1420 of 2010 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.54 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Manjeri. The above suit is one for recovery of money and the respondent is the plaintiff. An exparte decree was passed in the above suit against the petitioner/defendant. An application moved by the petitioner for setting aside the exparte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed by the court subject to terms fixing the time limit as well. Conditions imposed were not complied with and the application for setting aside the exparte was dismissed. Ext.P5 is the copy of the order passed by the court below imposing terms for setting aside the exparte decree. Petitioner has not produced the subsequent order dismissing his application on noncompliance of the directions under Ext.P5 order. Writ petition is filed challenging the propriety and correctness of Ext.P5 order invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made, I find no notice to the respondent is W.P.(C).No.1420 of 2010 - O 2 necessary and it is dispensed with. 3. For compliance of the terms fixed under Ext.P5 it is not disputed that the application moved by the petitioner for setting aside the exparte decree has been dismissed by the court. When that be so, petitioner has a right of appeal against that order as provided under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Writ petition filed challenging the propriety and correctness of an order which culminated in another order terminating the proceedings from which an appeal is provided, cannot be entertained as the party can challenge the propriety and correctness of the order impugned in that appeal. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P5 order in the appeal, if any filed, against the final order passed dismissing his application for setting aside the exparte decree, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-