IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15420 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/01/2009 IN IA.NO. 1938/2009 IN OS.NO.2/2003 OF SUB COURT, PALA. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- ABDUL MUTHALIB, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 65 YEARS, KOLEZATHKANIMEL HOUSE, NADACKAL KARA, TEEKOY VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, MR.GEORGE MATHEW. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. ABEY JOSEPH, S/O.K.A.JOSEPH, KANDATHIL HOUSE, ANIKADU KARA, ANIKKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. SIBY JOSEPH, S/O.K.A.JOSEPH, KANDATHIL HOUSE, ANIKADU KARA, ANIKKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 3. CHINNAMMA JOSEPH, W/O.K.A.JOSEPH, KANDATHIL HOUSE, ANIKADU KARA, ANIKKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.15420 of 2009 - O ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records which lead to the issuance of Ext.P3 and to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the same. ii) To issue appropriate directions to the court below to allow Exts.P1 and P2 without imposing any cost and to restore O.S.No.2/2003 on its file for disposal on merits.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.NO.2/2003 on the file of Sub Court, Pala which was dismissed for default for the absence of plaintiff on the date of hearing. He moved an application for restoration of suit under Order IX Rule 9 CPC. It was allowed on terms. The terms having not been complied with the petition was dismissed. Producing the order passed by the court imposing cost but not the subsequent order dismissing the suit, petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ/order to restore his suit to file. W.P.(C).Nos.15420 of 2009 - O 2 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Having regard to the submissions made, I find that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal against the order passed dismissing his application for restoration of the suit, and as such the writ petition is not maintainable. The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings to challenge the order passed dismissing his application for restoring the suit, if so advised. The period during which the writ petition was prosecuted will be taken into account by the court below, if any appeal is filed, and appropriate orders will be passed with respect to condonation of delay following the provisions covered by Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The writ petition is dismissed as indicated above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-