IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 FAO.No. 176 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/05/2005 IN IA.3110/04 IN OS.35/2002 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER-4TH DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------------------- PRINCIPAL, DEVI ACADEMY, SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KOLAZHY, THRISSUR-10. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S)/1ST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------------ THANKAMMA KURIAN, W/O.KOTTARAMVEETTIL MATHEW ANTONY, PONGANAMKAD DESOM, KURICHIKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No. 176 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT Bhavadasan, J, The appeal is directed against an order in I.A. 3110 of 2004 in O.S. 35 of 2002, by which the court below dismissed an application filed by the appellant to have the ex-parte decree set aside. 2. It is seen that the suit was one for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.2,97,376/-. The suit was decreed ex-parte against the defendants, who are four in number. Appellant herein is the fourth defendant. The claim in fact related to payment of salary to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that she is entitled to revised pay scale. That was accepted by the court below. The ex- parte decree happened to be passed on 10.2.2003. 3. Aggrieved by the said decree, the appellant herein approached the court below for setting aside the ex-parte decree on the ground that he is only a formal party to the suit and he did not take it seriously and therefore did not appear before court. The FAO. 176/2005. 2 court below, obviously since the ground was not convincing enough, dismissed the application. In the appeal, at the time of admission of the appeal interim stay was granted only against the appellant. The appellant apprehends that execution may be directed against him also. Even though convincing reasons have not been given, it is felt that an opportunity should be given to the appellant to have the suit decided on merits. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. The ex-parte decree stands set aside as against the appellant and the court below is directed to consider the question whether any relief can be granted against the appellant in his personal capacity or otherwise in the suit. The parties will appear before the court below on 16.7.2009. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.