IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2007 / 22ND ASHADHA 1929 WP(C).No. 18177 of 2007(L) --------------------------------- CMA.35/2005 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY OS.240/2003 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- KAKKOPRAVAN PADINJARE PUTHIYAVEETTIL KALLIANI, W/O. BALAN NAMBIAR, AGED 59 YEARS, KANNAPURAM AMSOM DESOM, KEEZHAKARA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.P.K.BEENA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KAKKOPRAVAN PADINJARE PUTHENVEETTIL JANAKI, W/O. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 55 YEARS, KANNAPURAM AMSOM, DESOM, KEEZHAKARA. 2. KAKKOPRAVAN PADINJARE PUTHIYAVEETTIL KUNHIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, MORAZHA AMSOM, DESOM, MIRAZGA P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.18177/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. NO.240/03 DT. 11.4.03 IN MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS. NO.240/03 DT. 24.9.03 IN MUNSIFF COURT KANNUR. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ALONG WITH THE PETITION TO SET ASIDE THE EXPARTE DECRE DT. 7.4.-5 IN OS. NO.240/03 IN MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN OS. NO.240/03 DT. 28.6.05 IN MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 1.11.06 IN SUB COURT THALASSERY IN CMA. 35/05. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 18177 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of July, 2007. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the orders passed as Exts.P4 and P5 by the Munsiff, Kannur as well as Sub Judge, Thalassery. The writ petitioner is the first defendant in the suit. When the suit was listed for trial she did not attend the Court and therefore the suit was decreed exparte. Within the permissible time she filed an application for setting aside the exparte decree along with a medical certificate contending that on account of the ailment she could not attend the Court. The said contention was not found in her favour by the Courts below. 2. A perusal of the orders of the Courts below would reveal that they were too technical in disposing the matter. It is a settled principle that principles of natural justice mandates cases should be heard on merits and disposed of unless the party applying is guilty of gross negligence or W.P.C 18177 OF 2007 -:2:- grave misconduct. In this case at the earliest possible time she had approached the Court for setting aside the exparte decree that too with the help of a medical certificate. It shows that she was eager enough to prosecute the case and so one cannot attribute gross negligence or grave misconduct. But on account of her conduct there has been some inconveniences caused to the other side and this can be corrected by ordering her to pay some costs. Therefore, the orders under challenge are set aside and the exparte decree passed is also set aside on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- by the writ petitioner to the plaintiff in the suit within a period of 3 weeks from today and the amount is to be paid or deposited before the trial court and on deposit of the same, the Court shall restore the suit back to file and dispose of the matter in accordance with law after affording opportunities to both sides to adduce evidence and produce documents in support of their respective contentions. If the amount of Rs.1,000/- is not paid within a period of three W.P.C 18177 OF 2007 -:3:- weeks as stated above, the writ petition shall stand automatically dismissed and the benefit conferred upon is thereby cancelled. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-