IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 CRP.NO. 591 OF 2010() --------------- OS.1326/2008 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT-I ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHARMISHTA REGHUVARAN,AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.REGHUVARAN, NOCHITHARA HOUSE, MALIANKARA COLLEGE, NORTH PARAVOOR, PIN-683 513. 2. PRADEEP,P.V,AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.P.K.VIJAYAN, PUTHUVALA HOUSE, SHANMUGHAPURAM, PACHALAM, PIN-682 012. 3. SANU.P.V, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.P.K.VIJAYAN, PUTHUVALA HOUSE, SHANMUGHAPURAM, PACHALAM, PIN-682 012. 4. SUSHAMA REGHUNATH, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.REGHUNATH, KAVITHA BHAVAN, PURAKKADU,AMBALAPPUZHA-688561. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.JALEEL SRI.SHAJI P.H. RESPONDENT(S) PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------- THULASI SUDHEER, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.SUDHEER, DEVAKI NIVAS, PAYYAMPILLY ROAD, NEAR E.S.I. HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM PIN- 682 018. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.591 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Defendant Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 in O.S. No.1326 of 2008 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-I, Ernakulam are the petitioners before me challenging order dated June 30, 2010 on I.A. No.1838 of 2010. Petitioners wanted to get an ex parte decree dated 31.01.2010 set aside on the ground that since their counsel was hospitalised during the time the case came up for evidence they were not informed about the case. Learned Munsiff dismissed the application by the impugned order. That is under challenge in this petition. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that the order is bad in law. 2. This Civil Revision Petition in challenge of the impugned order dismissing the application to set aside the ex parte decree itself is not maintainable. For, even if revision is allowed, that would not have the effect of terminating the suit. Secondly, against the impugned order the proper remedy of petitioners is to file appeal under Rule 1(d) of Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). When a remedy by C.R.P. No.591 of 2010 -: 2 :- way of appeal is available to the petitioners this Court is not required to interfere either under Section 115 of the Code or under Article 227 of the Constitution. Without prejudice to the right of petitioner to avail the statutory remedy this Original Petition is closed. I make it clear that in case petitioners file appeal against the impugned order, petitioners may request the appellate court to condone/exclude the period during which this petition was pending in this Court. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv