IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1352 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.8.2009 IN I.A.NO.3423/2009 IN OS.596/2003 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KRISHNA PILLAI, LEKSHMI VILASATHU VEEDU, VANDADUMPOIKA, VETTINADU MURI, VEMBAYAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PATHMAKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, LEKSHMI VILASATHU VEEDU, VANDADUMPOIKA, VETTINADU MURI, VEMBAYAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MADHAVAN PILLAI, KRISHNA BHAVAN, VETTINADU MURI, VEMBAYAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAJAMMA, W/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, KRISHNA BHAVAN, VETTINADU MURI, VEMBAYAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SOMALATHA, D/O.RAJAMMA, KRISHNA BHAVAN, VETTINADU MURI, VEMBAYAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1352 of 2010 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.596 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Nedumangad. Suit was one for injunction, which was dismissed for default for the nonappearance of the plaintiffs when it was listed for trial. Application moved by the petitioners for restoring the suit also happen to be dismissed for default. The learned Munsiff, not being satisfied with the cause shown for restoring the application moved to take back the petition filed for setting aside the dismissal order and restoring the suit, dismissed that application. Challenging that order, the present writ petition has been filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether an order has been passed on merits or for default in an application under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC, petitioner can challenge that order by way of an appeal as provided under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) of the CPC. The above rule W.P.(C).No.1352 of 2010 - O 2 says only of rejecting an application moved under Order IX Rule 9 and not disposal of an application moved on merits. Petitioner can work out his remedies by preferring an appeal, if so advised, against the orders dismissing his applications for restoring the suit. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-