IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29008 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- CMA.39/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- R.M. SUDARSAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, CHILANKA, KOTTOLI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. P. RAGHAVAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, PARALATH HOUSE, KARUVISSERI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. R.M. SHYLESH KUMAR, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, `PREMIER', KASABA AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. CONCORD LEASING AND HIRE PURCHASE LTD., REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR, WHITE LINES, PALAYAM, KASABA AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.29008 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.398 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court -I, Kozhikode. Suit was one for money, and the 1st respondent was the plaintiff and the 2nd and 3rd respondents, co-defendants. Suit was decreed ex parte. Petitioner moved an application for setting aside that ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That application was allowed on terms by the learned Munsiff directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the suit claim. Petitioner challenged that order preferring an appeal before the District Court, Kozhikode. The learned District Judge modified the order directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as cost to the plaintiff within a period of two weeks. Payment of cost was not made within the time stipulated. Petitioner moved an application WPC.29008/09 2 seeking extension of time, after the time provided for payment expired, stating that since he was laid upon with chickun guniya, payment could not be made within the time fixed. The learned District Judge, not being satisfied with the cause shown, dismissed the application for extension of time. Ext.P3 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P3 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the cause canvassed for extension of time, sought for indulgence of this Court for extension of time to pay the cost ordered as a condition precedent for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him. After going through Ext.P1 order passed by the learned District Judge, allowing the appeal on terms, WPC.29008/09 3 and also Ext.P3 order dismissing the application moved by the petitioner for extension of time, I find, it is not proper and appropriate for this Court to interfere with Ext.P3 order. The learned District Judge, after examining the merit of the case canvassed by the petitioner has come to the conclusion that there was no bona fides in the cause shown for nonpayment of the cost within the time ordered. Cost ordered was only Rs.500/- and the decree was passed as ex parte against the petitioner two years before also has to be taken into account in considering the question whether any indulgence can be shown to the petitioner. I find no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P3 order passed by the learned District Judge. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp