IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 506 of 2009 ---------------------------- [AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/03/2009 IN IA.NO. 889/06 IN OS.NO.586/2005 OF ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA] .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ IST CR.PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRASAD, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN, VELIMPARAMBU, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.B.PRAMOD. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & CR.PETITIONERS 2 TO 4/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RETNAMMA, W/O.P.G.AMBI, PALACHIRAYIL, KOMMADY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. REVAMMA, W/O.KRISHNAN, KATTUNKAL VEEDU, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 3. KUSALAKUMARI, W/O.CHANDRAKUMAR, KULAVARAMBIL HOUSE, PANGAMPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. RAHUL, S/O.PRAKASAN, THOTTUNKAL VEEDU, NEHRU TROPHY WARD, PUNNAMADA, ALAPPUZHA. 5. PRAKASAN, THOTTUNKAL VEEDU, NEHRU TROPHY WARD, PUNNAMADA, ALAPPUZHA. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- C.R.P.No.506 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- ORDER The revision is directed against an order passed by the learned Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha allowing an application moved by some of the defendants in O.S No.586 of 2005 for setting aside an exparte decree passed against them in that suit. The learned Munsiff after hearing both sides allowed the application on terms. Petitioner is the plaintiff in the above suit. Suit was one for perpetual prohibitory injunction. The defendants 1 and 2 alone among the five defendants in the suit had moved for setting aside the exparte decree. But the decree has been set aside as against all the defendants and further these two defendants (defendants 1 and 2) have not shown sufficient cause for setting aside the exparte decree is the C.R.P.No.506 OF 2009 Page numbers submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to impeach the propriety and correctness of the order passed by the court below impugned in the revision. It is further submitted by the counsel that the court below too had noticed that there was latches on the part of the first and second defendants in defending the case which lead to passing of an exparte decree. 2. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. Perusing the order passed by the learned Munsiff, I find the application moved by the first and second defendants in the suit had been allowed in exercise of the discretion vested with that court arriving at a conclusion that the disposal of the suit on merit is required to advance the ends of justice. The court has allowed the application only on C.R.P.No.506 OF 2009 Page numbers imposing terms to compensate the injury likely to be suffered by the petitioners / plaintiffs in setting aside an exparte decree passed in his favour. I find this court will not be justified in interfering with the order impugned especially when it is not shown that the exercise of discretion by the court below suffered from any infirmity. However I make it clear, on restoration of the suit, no duty is cast upon the petitioner / plaintiff to take further steps for giving notice to the other defendants against whom the exparte decree had been passed previously though the decree as a whole, had been set aside by the orders impugned. Subject to the above observations, the revision is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv