IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15844 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 455/2008 IN OS.277/2002 of SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR. OS.277/2008 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. ACHUTHAN PILLAI, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. GOPALA PILLAI, MANNATHU HOUSE, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. PRADEEP A.PILLAI, S/O. ACHUTHAN PILLAI, MANNATHU HOUSE, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. MR.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- ART LEASING LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, PUTHIYATHU BUILDINGS, ENGINEERING COLLEGE JUNCTION, M.C.ROAD, CHENGANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS RECOVERY MANAGER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15844 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the two defendants in O.S.No.277/2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. An ex-parte decree was passed against them on which an application was moved under Order IX Rule 13 CPC with a petition to condone the delay. The delay was not condoned and the application was dismissed. Petitioners have filed the present writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the propriety and correctness of the order passed by the court dismissing their delay petition. Ext.P7 is the copy of that order. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they have preferred an appeal challenging the dismissal of the application moved under Order IX Rule 13 CPC before the appropriate forum and the present petition before this Court had been filed by way of abundant W.P.(C).No.15844 of 2009 - O 2 caution that a non challenge to the order dismissing the delay petition would be fatal to this appeal. I do not find any merit in the submission as in the appeal challenging the order dismissing the application moved under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, it is open to the petitioners to canvass that the dismissal of the delay petition was not proper and correct. Reserving the right of the petitioners to challenge the order passed on the delay petition in the appeal, if any, filed, this writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-