IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18620 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.602/2009 IN OS.277/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, SON OF KESAVA PILLAI, THEKKODATHU HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMCHERI, THEKKEMURIYIL, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MANIKKANAMPARAMBIL TRUST, REPRESENTED BY MATHEW, SON OF VARKEY, MANICKANAMPARAMBIL, RESIDING AT NADUVILE HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, VAIKOM. ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.18620 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i. to set aside the order Ext.P3 and to grant the petitioner one month's time for filing the written statement in the suit; ii. to issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of this case. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.277/2007 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Vaikom. Suit is one for recovery of possession, and the respondent is the plaintiff. Petitioner/defendant did not file the written statement within the time and his request for enlargement of time was declined. He sought for one month more for filing the written statement and the learned Munsiff vide Ext.P3 order dismissed his petition. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached WPC.18620/09 2 in the petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly submitted that he is not standing on technical objections. Suit has been filed for recovery of possession after obtaining a sale certificate in a court auction since the auction purchaser failed to take steps for delivery within one year from the issue of that certificate, submits the counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since a connected suit was pending before another court and as the documents already filed in that suit were to be looked into, extension of one month's time was sought for to file the written statement. Whatever that be, having regard to the fact that the written statement was not filed within the time fixed by the court, I find the lapse can be condoned only on compensating the injury to the plaintiff on account of prolongation of the case delaying its final disposal. As a condition precedent for acceptance of the written statement of the WPC.18620/09 3 petitioner/defendant, by granting him an extension of time, he shall pay a cost of Rs.750/- to the plaintiff. Cost so ordered shall be paid to the counsel appearing for the respondent in this Court within one week and a memo filed within ten days from the date of this judgment. If cost is paid, petitioner/defendant will be allowed to file his written statement within an extended period of three weeks from the date of this judgment. On payment of cost and filing of written statement within the time fixed, the court below shall accept the written statement, after passing appropriate orders, in case, he had already been set ex parte consequent to nonfiling of the statement earlier and proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed as above. For report, post after ten days. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp