IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24628 of 2008(F) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN AS. 45 /1997 IN AS.44/1997 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL OS.217/1993 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL (EP. 7 /2008) .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SUDHAKARAN, S/O.LATE KESAVAN AGED 74 YEARS, THOPPIL VEEDU, FROM THAZHEKOLATHU PULIMOOTTU PURAYIDAM, MUNDAKKAL MURI, VELLOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. BABY, D/O.SATHYA BHAMA, KOCHUVILA VEEDU, PERUNKUZHI DESOM, AZHOOR VILLAGE. 2. BHARGAVI AMMA SATHYA BHAMA, MUNDAKKAL THOPPIL VEEDU, MURUKKUMPUZHA, VELLOOR VILLAGE. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24628 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 14th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P4 order passed by Sub Judge, Attingal, in A.S.No.44 of 1997 and A.S.No.45 of 1997. The appeals were disposed directing payment of cost of Rs.2000/= allowing I.A.No.582 of 2006 and I.A.No.584 of 2006, applications filed under Rule 17 of Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaints in O.S.No.217 of 1993 and O.S.No.205 of 1993, and remanding the suits for fresh disposal. Judgment provides that if the cost is not paid and the amendment applications will stand dismissed, and consequently A.S.No.44 of 1997 and A.S.No.45 of 1997 shall also stand dismissed. Petitioner did not pay the cost within one month as directed in the judgment. Accordingly, judgment worked itself out and both the appeals stood dismissed. It is thereafter I.A.No.925 of 2007 was filed to extend the time fixed for W.P.(C) No.24628/2008 2 payment of cost. That petition itself was filed on 2.7.2007, after the expiry of the period provided under Ext.P2 judgment. Under Ext.P4 order, petition was dismissed. Though learned counsel appearing for petitioner argued that learned Sub Judge should have allowed the application and granted time, when the petition itself is to extend the period provided under Ext.P2, the judgment in the appeal, which has become final, and is a self-working judgment, remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the judgment and not Ext.P4 order. Petition is dismissed with liberty to file a Second Appeal as against Ext.P2 judgment. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.