IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 30875 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.255/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.GOKULRAJ, S/O.CHIRAKKAL GOPALAN, AGED 68 YEARS, RETD. BANK MANAGER, "SREE ROOPA", MARUTHAROD AMSOM DESOM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SRI.S.K.SAJU SMT.A.SIMI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.HEMAMBIKA CHITTIES AND LOANS PRIVATE LTD., REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ENNAKKOTIL STREET, BIG BAZAAR, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD. 2. V.C.BALACHANDRAN, S/O.VELIYATH CHANDRASHEKHARAN, AGED 48 YEARS, VELIYATH HOUSE, KOORKANCHERI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. 3. M.R.RAJAN, S/O.MADAMBIKKAATTIL RAGHAVAN, AGED YEARS, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. 4. SUBHASH KUMAR, S/O.ARIKKATTU BHASKARAN NAIR, AGED 35 YEARS, MUPLIYAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R1 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD FOR R1 SRI.C.A.ANOOP FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.30875 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the 4th defendant in O.S.No.255 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Palakkad. Suit was one for money, in which an ex parte decree was passed against him. His application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed by the trial court. Against the dismissal of the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, an appeal was preferred before this Court. This Court in the appeal reversed that order and set aside the ex parte decree against him subject to terms directing for fresh disposal. Ext.P1 is the copy of the judgment passed by this Court in appeal as indicated above. On remission, restoring the suit against him, it was included in the special list for trial. At that stage, petitioner has filed this writ petition contending that despite setting aside the ex parte decree and the case included in the special list for trial, execution of the decree passed earlier is being continued. WPC.30875/09 2 Petitioner/4th defendant seeks for staying all further proceedings in execution of the previous decree passed in the suit invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Notice was directed to the 1st respondent/plaintiff alone. Though service was effected, 1st respondent has not entered appearance. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that when the case came up in the list for trial pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment of this Court, counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff reported that no relief was canvassed against the petitioner/4th defendant. Accepting that submission, the learned Sub Judge has ordered for deleting the 4th defendant from the party array. In the light of the submissions made as above, I find that no further orders/directions are warranted in the present writ petition. Ext.P1 judgment discloses that decree previously passed by the court was set aside only as against the petitioner/4th WPC.30875/09 3 defendant who had been declared ex parte subject to terms. That being so, the 1st respondent/plaintiff, it seems, could pursue the decree against the other defendants, which by then had become final. Now that after Ext.P1 judgment, restoring the suit against the petitioner/4th defendant, the plaintiff had given up whatever reliefs canvassed against him, he had been deleted from the party array. Petitioner cannot have any grievance in respect of the previous decree passed in the suit against the other defendants and execution of that decree against them. So much so, the writ petition is only to be closed, and I do so. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp