IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1905 of 2003(E) AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.9.2003 IN I.A.NOS.609 & 610 OF 1999 IN O.S.NO.86 OF 1996 OF THE MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE, PERINTALMANNA. REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT NO.1 - PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------------- EANU, S/O. KAVANNAYIL MOIDU, VETTATHUR AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 & DEFENDANTS: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.P.MOIDU, S/O. KUNHAHAMMED HAJI, MOORKANAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KOLAPARAMBIL MUJEEB, S/O. KADAR, MOORKANAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. MELATHODI MUNEER, S/O. VEERANKUTTY, MOORKANAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. MUHAMMED SUNIL, S/O. PARAYARUKUNDI MARAKKAR, -DO- -DO-. 5. MUSTHAFA, S/O. KANAKKANTHODI VEERAN, -DO- -DO-. 6. MUJEEB, S/O. KALAPARAMBIL MAMMADKUTTY, -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.A.NO.1976/2003 IN C.R.P.NO.1905/2003 DISMISSED 9/1/2008 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1905 OF 2003 E -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th January, 2008 O R D E R The Revision is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.86 of 1996, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Perintalmanna, against the order passed by the court below allowing the applications for setting aside the exparte decree and for condoning the delay in filing the said application. 2. Defendants 3 to 5 and 6 were set exparte and the court below passed an exparte decree on 10.12.1997. Applications were filed by defendants 3 to 5 and 6 to set aside the exparte decree and to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree, as I.A.Nos.645 of 1998 and 646 of 1998. Those applications were rejected by the court below pointing out certain irregularities. The decision was not on the merits. Later, defendants 3 to 5 and 6 filed the present applications, from which the Revision arises, to set aside the exparte decree and to condone the delay in filing the said application. 3. The court below allowed the application, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. It is to be noted that as per an C.R.P. NO.1905 OF 2003 :: 2 :: interim order passed in a Revision which arose out of the execution proceedings, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was deposited as a condition for stay. The court below has also noticed that a total sum of Rs.35,000/- was deposited by the judgment debtors. The suit was filed for realisation of money on the basis of an oral agreement. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below thought that an opportunity should be afforded to the defendants to contest the case on the merits. The discretion exercised by the court below in the matter of setting aside the exparte decree cannot be lightly interfered with by this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I do not think that the order of the court below suffers from any infirmity. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. The trial court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/