IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 CRP.No. 308 of 2006() --------------------------------- IA. 1496/05 AND 1497/05 IN OS.183/2000 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT IN IA. 1496 AND 1497 OF 2005 --------------------------------- R.REGHU, S/O.PARUKUTTY AMMA, MADATHIL HOUSE, KAVANAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV.MR.V.PHILIP MATHEW MR.JEPH JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANT/PETITIONERS -------------------------- SHELDEN SEBASTIAN, S/O.SEBASTIAN, PADMADAN HOUSE, FERRY ROAD, MATHILAKAM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. ADV. MR.K.RAMESH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== C.R.P.No.308 of 2006 ====================================== Dated this the 12th day of February 2009 JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S.No.183 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Irinjalakkuda is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The respondent is the sole defendant therein. The suit instituted by the petitioner for realisation of the sum of Rs.44 lakhs was decreed ex-parte on 25.10.2000. After steps were taken to execute the decree, the respondent/ defendant moved the court below to set aside the ex-parte decree. By order passed on 17.11.2005, the court below allowed the application to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside ex-parte decree and also the application to set aside the ex-parte decree on payment of the sum of Rs.3,000/- as costs on or before 25.11.2005. The said order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition. 2. I have heard Sri.M.K.Chandramohan Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He contends that as the court below has found that summons was duly served on the defendant, the court below ought to have held that there is no explanation for the long delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. The suit instituted by the petitioner is one for realisation of the sum of Rs.44 lakhs together with interest thereon. Summons was admittedly not served on the defendant in C.R.P.No.308 of 2006 2 person, but on his wife which the court below has held was “proper service”. However, the court below has exercised its discretion and granted the defendant an opportunity to contest the plaint claim on the merits by awarding to the petitioner the sum of Rs.3,000/- as costs. Costs was ordered to be paid on or before 25.11.2005. This Civil Revision Petition was filed on 20.3.2006 long after the defendant deposited the costs as ordered by the court below. 3. In my opinion, the order of the court below is just and proper. The court below has by the impugned order granted the defendant an opportunity to contest the plaint claim on the merits. The order passed by the court below extending to the defendant in a suit for realisation of money, an opportunity to contest the plaint claim on the merits cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I also find no ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the court below, when it passed the impugned order. I therefore hold that there is no merit in this Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/