IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 24768 of 2008(W) -------------------------- AS.165/2006 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V. VIJAYABALAN, S/O. VELU, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.24, AMBALA NAGAR, KOWDIAR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY, SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH, MR.JESSEL VINOHAR RODRICKS, SMT.V.J.SAFEENA, MR.PRADEESH P.GEORGE, MR.S.SANJITH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR. 2. THE REGISTRAR, MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATHMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 4. N.M. SIDHIC, S/O. MAKKAR, NARUMTHURUTHIL, MARADU, ERNAKULAM DIST. R1 TO R3 BY MR. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UTY. R4 BY ADV. MR.M.K.DILEEPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.24768/2008 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF I.A.NO.1945/2006 IN A.S.165/2006 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. P2: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.1945/2006 IN A.S.165/2006 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. P3: TYPED COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 02/08/2008 IN I.A.NO.1945/2006 IN A.S.165/2006 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN DOWN FROM THE A DIARY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.24768 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 15th June, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: 1. To call for the records leading to Ext.P3, scrutinise the same and to set aside Ext.P3 by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order and to dismiss I.A.No.1945/06 in A.S.No.165/06 on the file of the 1st Additional District Court, Ernakulam. 2. To issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper to meet the ends of justice. 3. To direct the respondents to pay the cost of the above proceedings to the petitioner. 2. In a suit filed by the 4th respondent in the Writ Petition as O.S.No.64/99 for damages, a decree was passed after trial awarding a sum of Rs.40,000/- as realisable from the defendants 1 to 3, who are the respondents 1 to 3 in the present petition. As against the decree and judgment, the defendants who were mulcted with liability to pay damages preferred an appeal with a petition to condone the delay of 132 days. Notice of the application being given, the W.P.C.No.24768/08 - 2 - respondents entered appearance. After conducting enquiry over the delay condonation petition, the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Ernakulam passed an order condoning the delay. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached by the petitioner who was the 4th defendant in the suit invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court vested under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge for the time being has not caused any injury to the petitioner as he was a co-defendant in the suit against whom no decree was passed. Prima facie, it is seen, petitioner cannot be considered as a person in any way aggrieved by the order passed by the court below in allowing the petition for condonation of delay. Further more, the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge is primarily an order issued exercise his discretion after taking note of the facts and circumstances involved. On that count also the impugned order is not open to challenge unless it is shown that the discretion was improperly exercised. Petitioner has no such case. Writ Petition is not entertainable. The Writ Petition is closed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE W.P.C.No.24768/08 - 3 -