IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25780 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.481/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. NAJMAL BABU, RESIDING AT VELLIMUTTATHU VEETTIL, PUNNAPARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. NOUSHAD, SULTHANA GROUP, NABEESA, ALAPPUZHA, PUNNAPARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA, A.D.B., ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. BY ADV.MR.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC FOR SBI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25780 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records leading to the passing of Exhibit P2 order and set aside the same. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the Sub Court, Alappuzha to delete the condition of remitting Rs.1,00,000/- out of the plaint claim of Rs.4,71,000/- for setting aside the exparte decree. iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the court below to consider Exhibit P1 afresh petition and pass orders on the same in accordance with law”. 2. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.481 of 2007on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. An exparte decree was passed against the defendant in the suit. An application moved by the petitioner to set aside the exparte decree was allowed by the learned Sub Judge subject to terms. Ext.P1 is that order. Petitioners were directed to deposit Rs.1 Lakh of the plaint claim and also to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- as a condition precedent for setting aside the exparte decree. Impeaching the correctness of that order the writ petition has been filed invoking the W.P.(C).No. of 2009 - O 2 supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 2257 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. 4. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find that no notice to the respondent is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. 5. Ext.P1 was passed by the court below allowing the application moved by the petitioners to set aside the exparte decree on 16.10.2008. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that consequent to noncompliance of Ext.P1 order the petition for setting aside the exparte decree was dismissed. Petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal to challenge the orders of the trial court, and the writ petition is not entertainable. Writ petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-