IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29074 of 2009(O) -------------------------- CMA.21/2006 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA OS.274/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- R.ASOKAN, MULANKADU VEEDU, GRACING BLOCK WARD, PUNALUR. BY ADV. MS.M.R.ANUPAMA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUSEELA, D/O.CHEMPAKAVALLY, CHITRALAYAM, KACHERY ROAD, PUNALUR MURI, PUNALUR VILLAGE. 2. DEVIKA RANI, D/O.CHEMPAKAVALLY, OF -DO- -DO- THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29074 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.274 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Punalur. Suit is one for perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants who are stated to be landlords, from forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the schedule room, an advocate office. An application moved by the petitioner for interim injunction was declined by the learned Munsiff. Correctness of that order was challenged before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara filing an appeal. That appeal happened to be dismissed for default. Ext.P4 is the copy of that order. Writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 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. 3. When the appeal is dismissed for default, it is open to seek for restoration of the appeal as provided under Order XLI Rule 19 of the CPC. In case such an application is moved beyond W.P.(C).No.29074 of 2009 - O 2 time, it is open to him to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay as contemplated under sub rule (2) of Rule 19 of Order XLI of the CPC. Taking note that the suit was instituted in 2005 and, probably, now ripe for trial, it appears, a speedy disposal giving quietus to the whole controversy is the need of the hour. There will be a direction to the Munsiff Court, Punalur to give the suit top priority in hearing, if it is ripe for trial, and dispose of it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before closing of the courts for the mid summer vacation in 2010. It is open to the petitioner to seek whatever remedies available to him for restoration of the appeal, if so advised, as provided by law. Writ petition disposed of as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-