DEVARAJAN v. K.K.ASHOKAN

S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.````````````````````````````````````````````````````W.P.(C) No. 13403 OF 2009 O````````````````````````````````````````````````````Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009J U D G M E N TThe writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.507/02 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta. Suitwas dismissed for default and the petitioner/plaintiff moved an application for restoring the suit under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. Theabove petition was filed with a petition to condone delay. Afterenquiry, the petitions were dismissed by the learned Munsiff. Impeaching the correctness and propriety of that order, the writ petition has been filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Respondent has entered appearance. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented and submissions made by the counsel, it is apparent that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of an appeal against the impugned order under Order 43 Rule 1(c) of the CPC. When such a remedy is available to the petitioner, writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India cannot be entertained. Reserving the right of the WPC.13403/09: 2 :petitioner to prefer an appeal, if so advised, against the impugned order, writ petition is dismissed.sd/-(S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE)aks// True Copy //P.A. to Judge