IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28582 of 2008(C) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/07/2008 IN IA.104/2008 IN OS.308/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: --------------------------- MATHEW ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, KURISSUMMOOTTIL, PAYYAVOOR AMSOM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------ JOSE PUTHUKKULATHIL, S/O. JOSEPH, KAKKATHODU, PAYYAVOOR AMSOM DOSOM, PAYYAVOOR P.O. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== W.P.(C) No. 28582 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 308 of 2002 on the file of the Munsiff's court, Taliparamba which is a suit for realisation of money, challenges Ext.P4 order dated 08.07.2008 passed by the said court dismissing the restoration petition filed by the plaintiff. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that his application was actually one filed under Order 9 Rule 4 C.P.C and that is why the petitioner has not filed an appeal against Ext.P4 order. 3. Admittedly, the suit was not dismissed either under Rule 2 or Rule 3 of Order 9 C.P.C so as to justify the filing of a petition under Order 9 Rule 4 C.P.C. That is why the court below treated the application filed under Order 9 Rule 4 C.P.C. as one filed under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. The petitioner has got a right of appeal under Order 43 C.P.C. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file an appeal, this writ petition is dismissed. Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv