IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 249 of 2005() --------------------- CMA.4/2004 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------- C.H.MOHAMMED HAJI S/O. AHAMED KUTTY HAJI, AGED 59 YEARS, MERCHANAT, RESIDING AT 'C.H.HOUSE', MATTAMPURAM, MADAYI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.MOHAMMED KUNHI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, PAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1, 2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.683/05 IN CRP.NO.249/05 DISMISSED. 31.3.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.249 OF 2005 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 O R D E R Revision is directed against the concurrent decision rendered by the two inferior courts that the petitioner/plaintiff has not made out sufficient cause for restoring the suit dismissed for default. Petitioner has filed a suit as O.S.No.616 of 1999 before the Munsiff Court, Thaliparamba for a declaration that an electricity bill issued by the 2nd defendant is null and void and also for consequential injunction. When the suit came up in the list, the plaintiff remained absent, with the result, the suit was dismissed. An application moved by the plaintiff for restoration of the suit was also turned down by the learned Munsiff holding that the plaintiff has not shown any sufficient cause for setting aside the order dismissing the suit. In the appeal preferred against that order, the learned Sub Judge concurring with the views taken by the court below that the plaintiff has not shown CRP.249/05 2 any cause leave alone sufficient cause for condoning the delay, negatived his request for restoring the suit setting aside the order of dismissal. The judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge is assailed in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff urged for an opportunity to challenge the validity of the electricity bill which was impeached in the suit before the statutory authority irrespective of the decisions rendered by the courts below dismissing the suit. The delay in preferring such an application before the statutory authority, it is requested, may be directed to be condoned by issuing appropriate orders/directions by this Court. Perusing the judgment of the learned Sub Judge and also the order of the learned Munsiff with reference to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I find that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction it is inappropriate for this Court to accede to the request made by the counsel for the plaintiff. Prima facie, the suit filed for a declaration that an electricity bill issued by the Board is null and void appears to be not maintainable when a CRP.249/05 3 challenge thereto has to be preferred in accordance with the provisions of the Statute before the concerned statutory authority. It is open to the petitioner to raise whatever challenges available to him against the bill issued in accordance with law. So far as the present revision is concerned, the only question emerging for consideration is the correctness and propriety of the orders/judgments passed by the courts below holding that he has not made out sufficient cause for setting aside the order dismissing his suit for default, I find no infirmity leave alone jurisdictional infirmity in the orders/judgments passed by the courts below. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp CRP.249/05 4