IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).NO. 2726 OF 2011(O) ----------------------------------------- OS.885/2010 OF II ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. BHASKARAN,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN,SREEVILASOM,CHAVADINADA, VENGANOOR VILLAGE FROM VARUTHATTU VEEDU,MULLOOR, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE. 2. USHA,AGED 38,D/O.KAMALAMMA,PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU,TC 44/1711,KALAMESWARAM WARD, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,FROM VARUTHATTU VEEDU,MULLOOR DESOM,VIZHINJAM VILLAGE. 3. SATHYAN,AGED 42,S/O.THANKAPPAN, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU,TC 44/1711,KAMALESWARAM WARD,MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SYAMALA,D/O.DEVAKI,AGED 46,PLAVILA COLONY,MULLOOR DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, 695 001. 2. SYAMKUMAR,AGED 28 YEARS, PLAVILA COLONY,MULLOOR DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, 695 001. 3. SALINI,D/O.SYAMALA,T.43/1086, VMRA 18,PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU,MANACAUD, MUTTATHARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P(C) NO.2726 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF I.A. NO.154 OF 2011 IN O.S. NO.885 OF 2010 DATED 1.1.2011 OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A. NO.154 OF 2011 IN O.S. NO.885 OF 2010 DATED 13.1.2011 OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 8.7.2011 IN I.A. NO.154 OF 2011 IN O.S. NO.885 OF 2010 DATED 1.1.2011 OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.2726 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.885 of 2010 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-II, Neyyattinkara. That is a suit for redemption of a mortgage (5 cents). Summons was served on the respondents on 14.09.2010 and the case was posted on 10.12.2010 for filing written statement as a last chance. Written statement was not filed within that time. Respondents were set ex parte (but no ex parte decree was passed). Respondents on 06.01.2011 filed in I.A. No.154 of 2011 to set aside the ex parte order against them and receive the written statement and counter claim. Petitioner filed objection to I.A. No.154 of 2011 contending that written statement is not filed within 90 days and there is no application to condone the delay. Learned Munsiff as per Ext.P3, order dated July 08, 2011 allowed I.A. No.154 of 2011. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel, placing reliance on the decision in Kailash v. Nankhu (2005 [2] KLT 623) has contended that in the absence of an application to condone the delay in not filing the written statement within 90 days learned O.P(C) No.2726 of 2011 -: 2 :- Munsiff was not correct in receiving the written statement. It is also contended that the objection preferred by petitioner was not taken into account. 2. In the decision relied on by learned counsel it is stated that the prayer for extension of time made by the defendant for filing written statement is not to be granted for the mere asking. Extension of time may be allowed by way of exception if period of 90 days has expired on proper reasons assigned by the defendant and also placed on record in writing briefly by the court on its being satisfied. 3. It is not as if there must be an application to condone the delay in filing the written statement. What is required is only that sufficient reasons must be stated. In the present case there is no ex parte decree against the respondents. There was only an ex parte order against them. They filed I.A. No.154 of 2011 to set aside that ex parte order and receive the written statement and counter claim. In the affidavit of the second respondent in support of I.A. No.154 of 2011 she stated that her father died in suspicious circumstances, the original documents pertaining to the property were with the father and later they learned that the documents are not traceable. It took time for the respondents O.P(C) No.2726 of 2011 -: 3 :- to get the certified copies of the documents (and prepare the written statement and counter claim). 4. It is with the above circumstances on record that learned Munsiff has decided to set aside the ex parte order and receive the written statement and counter claim. I am inclined to think that there was sufficient material before the learned Munsiff though reasons are not explicitly stated in the impugned order. Learned Munsiff only observed that in the interest of justice the application is to be allowed on costs of Rs.300/- to the petitioner. Certainly learned Munsiff has arrived at that conclusion in view of the plea that second respondent has made in the affidavit in support of I.A. No.154 of 2011. I do not find reason to interfere. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv