IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 CRP.NO. 271 OF 2010() ---------------------------------- CMA.32/2008 OF SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA OS.705/2006 OF PRL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA (IA 1183/08,IA 1182/06) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ----------------------------------------------- SUDHAKARAN, S/O. SUBBAYYAN NADAR, RESIDING AT KAVITHA NILAYAM, KIDARAKUZHI, VENGANOOR DESOM, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. SUNDARA HAJI, S/O. CHRISTUDAS, HARITHA BHAVAN, ELAM PLAVILA, MARANALLOOR DESOM MARANALLOOR VILLAGE. 2. RETNARAJ, S/O. CHRISTUDAS, HARITHA BHAVAN, ELAM PLAVILA, MARANALLOOR DESOM MARANALLOOR VILLAGE. 3. CHRISTI, S/O. GAMALLEL, KIZHAKKARIKATHU VEEDU, ELAM PLAVIA MOOLAKONAM, MARANALLOOR DESOM, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE. 4. MANOHARAN, S/O. MANIYAN, CHEKKITAVILA VEEDU, ELAMPLAVILA MOOLAKONAM, MARANALLOOR DESOM, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE. 5. D. SOBHANAM, JOSE NIVAS, KANNAPURATHIL, MARANALLOOR DESOM, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE. 6. RAGHAVAN, S/O. MANIYAN, RESIDING AT VANIYAMKOTTU THOTTARIKATHU HOUSE, MARANALLOOR DESOM, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.271 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010 O R D E R Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appear through counsel. 2. This Revision petition is at the instance of defendant No.1 who along with others suffered an ex parte decree in O.S. No.705 of 2006 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Neyyattinkara and who attempted to get the ex parte decree set aside after 400 days of the prescribed time but which did not not succeed. Petitioner filed I.A. Nos.1182 and 1183 of 2008 to condone the delay and to set aside ex parte decree. Applications were dismissed which was confirmed by the learned Sub Judge in C.M.A. No.32 of 2008. Learned counsel contends that dismissal of I.A. No.1383 was solely for the reason that no medical certificate accompanied that application. Learned counsel states that petitioner was laid up and could not file the application on time. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs sued petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 6 for a decree for prohibitory injunction against widening of a pathway. Suit was filed under Order I rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner and respondent No.3 to C.R.P. No.271 of 2010 -: 2 :- 6 appeared through counsel pursuant to the summons served on them. Thereafter they did not contest the suit and that resulted in the ex parte decree on 21.12.2006. As per version of respondent Nos.1 and 2, petitioner in wilful disobeyance of the decree interfered with the suit property and even threatened them. Local police registered a case against petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.4898 of 2008 seeking police protection. There a counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner denying the allegations. This Court as per judgment dated 18.02.2008 permitted respondent Nos.1 and 2 to seek enforcement of the decree for prohibitory injunction they have in their favour. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 then filed execution petition and sought execution of the decree. It is thereafter that petitioner chose to file I.A. Nos.1182 and 1183 of 2008 to set aside ex parte decree and condone the delay. Even as per version of petitioner he was not interested in the subject matter of the suit. It is now stated that the decree affected his right of access to the quarry being run by him. He also stated that he was ill, is partially deaf and could not file application for setting aside the ex parte decree on time. Courts below did not accept that version. C.R.P. No.271 of 2010 -: 3 :- 4. Even the admitted version of petitioner is that he was not interested in the subject matter of the suit and hence he did not choose to contest the case. If that be so there is no reason why he should develop a post decretal interest and seek to challenge the ex parte decree. It is obvious that applications are filed only after police registered a case against petitioner and pursuant to the judgment of this Court on 18.02.2008 respondent Nos.1 and 2 tried to execute the decree and prosecute the petitioner for the alleged wilful disobeyance of the decree. Trial court observed that there is no merit or bona fides in the applications and there is no sufficient cause made out to condone the delay or to set aside the ex parte decree. Appellate court has confirmed that. On going through the impugned order and judgment and hearing learned counsel, I do not find reason to differ. As such I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order and judgment in this Revision. Civil Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv