IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25432 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.195/1995 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RENUKA ARAVINDAN, D/O.T.P.GOPALAN, RESIDING IN CHEMBILODE AMSOM, CHALA DESOM (BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER T.P.GOPALAN, S/O.KORAN, KUMKUM, CHALA EAST, KADACHIRE(DIED), T.K.PRAKASHAN RECORDED AS P.A.HOLDER, S/O.GOPALAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RENUKA KISHORE, W/O.KISHORE SONI, RESIDING AT 20/3, IST CLOOR, MALIK MAHAL, THAVEREKERE, BANGALORE-560 081. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.25432 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: i. to call for the records of the case leading to Exts.P3 and P5 orders and to set aside those orders. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.195 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery. The above suit was one for specific performance of an agreement of sale, and the respondent is the 8th defendant. An ex parte decree was passed in the suit on 28.8.2002. Nearly five years later, the respondent/8th defendant moved an application for setting aside that ex parte decree with a petition to condone delay. The grievance of the petitioner is that the ex parte decree was WPC.25432/09 2 set aside condoning the inordinate delay without giving him notice. In the ex parte proceedings, it is stated, notice had been issued by registered post and substituted service by paper publication. But, according to the petitioner, she did not receive any notice. Propriety and correctness of the orders passed by the court below condoning the delay and setting aside the ex parte decree on the application is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and taking note of Exts.P3 and P5 orders, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and hence, it is dispensed with. The question whether the petitioner had been given notice in the proceedings taken by the respondent to set aside the ex parte decree, which admittedly was filed nearly 1600 days after the passing of the decree, deserve scrutiny of the materials connected with the suit. Naturally, such an enquiry can be conducted only by the trial court which passed WPC.25432/09 3 the ex parte decree and later allowed the application for setting aside that decree. If the petitioner has genuine grievance that no notice of the proceedings for setting aside the ex parte decree was actually given it is open to her to file an application for reviewing Exts.P3 and P5 orders by filing proper petition before the court below. If any such application is filed, the court below shall consider it with notice to the respondent and dispose it in accordance with law. Reserving the right of the petitioner to prefer such an application, the writ petition is closed. Handover a copy of the judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner on usual terms. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp