IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 CRP.No. 499 of 2011() ---------------- I.A. NO. 514/2010 AND 515/2010 IN OS.645/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT, N. PARAVUR .................. PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF : ----------------------------------------------------------------- RAVEENDRANATHA PILLA, AGED 78, S/O.KUNJAN PILLA, KUNNATH VEETTIL, THIRUVALLOOR KARA, ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, PIN - 683 511. BY ADVS. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.P.VISWANATHAN RESPONDENTS / PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 / DEFENDANTS : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL SALAM, AGED ABOUT 50, S/O.BEERAVU, NALUMURIKKAL VEETTIL, KOTTAPPURAM KARA, ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, PIN - 683 511. 2. ALI, AGED ABOUT 48, S/O.KUNJU MOHAMMED, VIRUTHIPPARAMBIL, ULIYANNOOR KARA, KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, PIN - 683 102. 3. HAMSA, AGED ABOUT 47, S/O.MOHAMMED, THOTTUNGAPARAMBIL, KOTTAPPURAM KARA, ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, PIN - 683 511. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.499 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 11th day of November, 2011 ORDER Plaintiff in O.S.No.645 of 1997 of the Court of learned Munsiff, North Paravur challenges the order dated 19.07.2011 on I.A.Nos.514 and 515 of 2010 in O.S.No.645 of 1997. Petitioner filed that suit originally against respondents 2 and 3/defendants 1 and 2 for specific performance of an agreement for sale of property allegedly belonging to respondents 2 and 3. (Alleged) agreement was executed on 04.12.1996 agreeing to purchase property for `.50,000/-. Petitioner is said to have paid `.45,000/- as advance to respondents 2 and 3. Respondents 2 and 3 denied execution of the agreement and claimed that they transferred property to the first respondent even before 04.12.1996. On that contention, first respondent was impleaded as additional third defendant. He remained ex parte. The suit was decreed allowing petitioner to recover the advance money with charge over the suit property. Respondents 2 and 3 filed A.S.No.356 of 2006. That appeal was dismissed. That dismissal was challenged by the first respondent/additional third defendant in R.S.A. It was contended on behalf of petitioner that remedy available to the C.R.P.No.499 of 2011 -: 2 :- first respondent was not to file a second appeal but to request the trial court to set aside the ex parte decree against him. That contention was accepted and R.S.A.No.262 of 2009 was disposed of without prejudice to the right of first respondent to file application to set aside the ex parte decree. Thereafter first respondent filed I.A.No.515 of 2010 to set aside the ex parte decree and I.A.No.514 of 2010 to condone the delay of 2940 days. Those applications were opposed by the petitioner on various grounds. First respondent gave evidence as PW1 and proved Exts.A1 to A3. Exts.A1 and A2 are passports of first respondent while Ext.A3 is document No.6428 of 1996 (counsel says that it is dated 26.09.1996) executed by respondents 2 and 3 in favour of the first respondent concerning the suit property. Based on the above evidence learned Munsiff found that the delay has to be condoned and the ex parte decree against the first respondent is to be set aside on cost of `.5,000/-. The said order is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel submitted that there was sufficient publication in the suit through a vernacular daily which has circulation abroad as well as to the impleadment of first respondent in the suit and that it was due to no fault of petitioner C.R.P.No.499 of 2011 -: 3 :- that first respondent did not appear in Court. 3. May be, there was paper publication as claimed by petitioner. But from Exts.A1 and A2, learned Munsiff has observed that first respondent was abroad from 26.01.1996 and returned to his native place on 28.03.2002 and thereafter in the year, 2009 he filed R.S.A.No.262 of 2009. Learned Munsiff was satisfied that there was sufficient cause made out by the first respondent to condone the delay and allowed the applications on cost of `.5,000/-. 4. Though, learned counsel for petitioner has raised vehement argument against the order under challenge, I do not find reason to interfere. I must bear in mind that respondents 2 and 3 in the written statement had raised a contention that the property had already been sold to the first respondent even prior to the agreement dated 04.12.1996 and it was in view of that contention first respondent was impleaded as additional third defendant in the suit. On getting information about the decree, first respondent filed R.S.A.No.262 of 2009 which this Court disposed of as per Ext.A4, judgment dated 15.02.2010 giving liberty to the first respondent to request the trial court to set aside the ex parte decree. It is thereafter that I.A.Nos.514 of 515 C.R.P.No.499 of 2011 -: 4 :- of 2010 were filed by the first respondent. Having heard learned counsel and gone through the order under challenge, I do not find reason to interfere with the order at the instance of petitioner. This civil revision is dismissed. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-