IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29878 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.2823/2008 IN OS.257/2007 & I.A.2824/08 IN O.S.213/07 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- PATTATHOOR SUKUMARAN, S/O. APPUNNI, KALPAKANCHERI AMSOM, AYIRANI DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENS: --------------- 1. A.V.ALIKUTTY HAJI, S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY HAJI AMBALATHINGAL @ VERUNGAL HOUSE, KALPAKANCHERI AMSOM, AYRANI DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 2. ARSAL, S/O.ALIKUTTY HAJI, -DO- -DO- 3. KUNHIN @ SAHOOF, C/O.A.V.ALIKUTTY HAJI, -DO- -DO- THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.29878 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 22nd October, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To call for the records leading to Exhibits P8 and P9 and issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction setting aside the same.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.213 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Tirur. Sut was one for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants from forcefully evicting him from the plaint schedule building. The first respondent as plaintiff filed another suit as O.S.No.257 of 2007 for eviction of the plaintiff from the building on the ground of default in payment of rent and arrears of rent. Suit filed by the first respondent was decreed ex parte and that of the petitioner was dismissed for default. Applications moved by the petitioner for restoration of the suit and for setting aside the ex parte decree were dismissed. P8 is the order declining his request for setting aside the ex parte order passed in O.S.No.257 of 2007 and P9 is the order passed by the court dismissing the application for restoration of the suit filed by the W.P.C.No.29878/09 - 2 - petitioner. Propriety and correctness of P8 and P9 orders are challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy to challenge P8 and P9 orders by way of appeals as provided under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When that be so, a writ petition to impeach the correctness of P8 and P9 orders is not entertainable. However, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for a grace period to prefer the appeals submitting that hasty steps are being taken by the first respondent to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.257 of 2007. I direct the learned Munsiff, Tirur to keep in abeyance the execution proceedings from the decree passed in O.S.No.257 of 2007 for a period of three weeks from the date of this judgment. Reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge P8 and P9 orders before the appropriate forum as provided by law, if so advised, the writ petition is closed. Return the certified copies of P8 and P9 to the counsel for the petitioner. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE W.P.C.No.29878/09 - 3 -