IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 FAO.No. 105 of 2011() ------------------------------- ( AGAINST ORDER DATED 07/01/2011 IN I.A.NO.256/2010 IN O.S.NO.52/2004 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA) ---------------------- APPELLANT/ PETITIONER/ DEFENDANT ----------------------------------------------------------- N.K. ASOKAN, AGED 51, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, LAKSHMI BHAVAN, MUDIYOORKONAM, PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.ADEEP ANWAR RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF ---------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL BANK LTD., PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN- 691 305 BY THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F.A.O. No. 105 of 2011 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal is against an order by the court below refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree. This is the second time that the defendant had to apply for setting aside the ex- parte decree. But, the learned counsel for the appellant is justified in law in pointing out that what is relevant for consideration is whether his client had shown sufficient cause to set aside the ex-parte decree as of now and the prior conduct may not be wholly relevant though it would continue to cast a shadow on the probable bonafides. 2. With this situation, we wanted to explore as to what would ultimately happen or could happen if ex-parte decree is FAO No.105/2011 : 2 : set aside. We, therefore, looked into the plaint and the written statement. The respondent/plaintiff is a bank. The loan transaction is admitted. The defendant/appellant pleaded in his written statement that the repayment of the loan was not promptly made because of shortcomings in his business venture. With this, we are satisfied that there is no serious triable issue for the court below, even if we were to set aside the impugned order. Liability for interest would only grow. 3. Going through the order challenged before us, we find that the court below has adverted to and considered the relevant materials and concluded that the application cannot be allowed. Ext.A1 medical certificate stating that the appellant was suffering from 'Khadeegraham' and such health situation had compelled him to keep away from the court proceedings was not acceptable without further consideration by the evidence of the doctor. We do not find any ground to interfere with the appreciation of evidence and discretion exercised by the court below. FAO No.105/2011 : 3 : With this, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed in limine. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/- (P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE) aks/11.04 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge