IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 21245 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AS.285/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA AS.174/2009 of SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR (IA 147/09) .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, LEKSHMI BHAVANAM, KURATTISSERY, MANNAR. BY ADVS. MR.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN, MR.K.JAGADEESH, MR.T.S.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. K.K.GOPALAKRISHNAPILLAI, KANNATTUTHARA HOUSE, PANDANADU MURI, PANDANADU VILLAGE. 2. RAJESH KUMAR, LEKSHMI BHAVANAM, KURATTISSERY, MANNAR. R1 BY ADV. MR.N.ASHOK KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.21245 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. to set aside Ext.P4 order and allow Ext.P2 petition as prayed for. ii. to grant such other reliefs which this Honourable Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case and the costs of this case. 2. Petitioner is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.314 of 2005 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chengannur. The decree was passed in the suit against the defendants. Initially an appeal was filed by his wife against the decree passed by the trial court. That appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, petitioner filed an appeal as A.S.No.174 of 2008 with a petition to condone the delay before the Sub Court, Chengannur. The delay petition was dismissed, consequently, the appeal was WPC.21245/09 2 also rejected. Challenging the dismissal of the delay petition, the writ petition has been filed seeking the aforementioned reliefs invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Notice being given, the respondents have entered appearance. 4. I heard the counsel on both sides. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find that jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to challenge the impugned order, when there is an alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioner as provided by law. Writ petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp WPC.21245/09 3