IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 CRP.No. 381 of 2009() --------------------- CMA.13/2008 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR OS.251/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR (IA.1976 & 1977/2007) .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BEEVI, W/O.PAREED, AGED 46, KARUMAKKATTU HOUSE, PERINGALA KARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE. 2. PAREED, S/O.MUHAMMADALI, AGED 48, KARUMAKKATTU HOUSE, PERINGALA KARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.K.R.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:RESPONDENT:PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBRAHUMKUTTY, S/O.HASSAINAR, AGED ABOUT 39, KOYAMPARAMBIL PARIYARATHU VEEDU, PERINGALA KARA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.381 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 O R D E R This revision is filed against the judgment styled as an order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Perumbavoor in C.M.A.No.13/2008. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.251/2004 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor. An ex-parte decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction was passed against the petitioners/defendants in the above suit. They moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree along with a petition to condone delay of 658 days. Notice being given, plaintiff opposed that application filing written objections. Learned Munsiff, after hearing both sides, not being satisfied with the grounds canvassed for setting aside the ex-parte decree, dismissed that application. The appeal preferred against that order by the petitioners also was unsuccessful. The learned Sub Judge was in agreement with the views taken by the learned Munsiff. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of the judgment rendered by the court below and also the order of the learned Munsiff, this revision has been filed. C.R.P.No.381 of 2009 2 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find notice to respondents is not necessary and it is dispensed with. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs had played fraud on the court suppressing material facts as to the dismissal of an earlier suit filed by them for partition over the very same suit property and the dismissal of the appeal also preferred against the decree passed in that suit. The plea so canvassed to assail the impugned judgment remain unsubstantiated by any material. Perusing the order passed by the learned Munsiff and also the learned sub Judge, I find once, after declaring the defendants ex-parte and passing of a decree, on their application condoning the delay in moving such application, ex-parte decree was set aside and opportunity extended to them to contest the suit. Still, petitioners/defendants did not file written statement which, consequently resulted in setting them ex-parte again and passing of an ex-parte decree against them. It appears from the order C.R.P.No.381 of 2009 3 passed by the learned Munsiff, no material was placed before that court to show the cause, if any, leave alone sufficient cause, for the absence of the petitioners or any of them for their nonappearance before the court on the date of hearing of the suit and also for the long delay in moving the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. When no material was placed to prove their absence and also for condonation of delay, it goes without saying that the application for condonation of delay could not have been entertained and that alone was the order passed by the learned Munsiff, which can never be considered as improper. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff which was confirmed by the learned Sub Judge in appeal. The revision petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-