IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18071 of 2008(B) -------------------------- RCA.44/2006 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ KURUNTHONKANDY BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.CHATHUKUTTY, AGED 54 YEARS, MOKERI AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.GHOSH YOHANNAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KURUNTHOTHAZHA KARUNAN, S/O.KELAPPAN, MOKERI AMSOM DESOM, P.O.MOKERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THARAVATTATH KANARAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, MARUTHOMKARA AMSOM, MOYILOTHARA DESOM, P.O.MARUTHOMKARA, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C). No.18071 of 2008-B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T P.R.RAMAN, J. Ext.P4 is sought to be quashed by issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs. 2. The petitioner is a tenant who faced an order of eviction consequent upon declaring him ex parte for failure to appear and contest the matter. He thereafter filed an application for setting aside the ex parte award. But the application was dismissed against which he preferred an appeal. The appellate court taking a lenient view in the matter allowed the appeal by order dated 26/08/2006 on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,500/- as cost within 45 days. He, in the circumstances, ought to have paid the amount within 45 days period, but even for over a year he did not make the payment and he filed Ext.P3 for enlargement of time. Admittedly, Ext.P3 was not filed before the expiry of 45 days time or within a reasonable time after its expiry. W.P.(C).No.18071/2008-B -:2:- On the other hand, he took more than a year even to approach the court for enlargement of time. The court below in such circumstances found that no grounds were made for enlargement. We do not find any error in Ext.P4 order passed by the court below. The writ petition fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms