IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 CRP.No. 374 of 2009() ------------------------------ I.A.200/2009 IN OS.438/2008 of SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/CR.PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMAM, 'G' SADANAM, PUNNAPRA, AMBALAPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.T.R.RAJAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. S.N.D.P. SAKHA YOGAM NO.363, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. K. BHASKARAN, ANAVELIL, NEERKUNNAM, AMBALAPPUZHA. R2 BY ADV. MR.A.T.ANILKUMAR, SMT.V.SHYLAJA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- C.R.P.No.374 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- ORDER Revision is directed against the order dated 31/03/2009 in I.A.No.200 of 2009 in O.S No.438 of 2008 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Alappuzha. Petitioner filed the above suit for recovery of money and the respondent was the defendant. Suit was decreed exparte. Respondent moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the exparte decree. After enquiry under the impugned order, that application was allowed on terms. Propriety and correctness of that order passed by the learned Sub Judge is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Despite taking notice that the respondents failed to show sufficient cause, the petition for setting C.R.P.No.374 OF 2009 Page numbers aside the exparte decree was allowed by the court below fixing a cost of Rs.500/- is the grievance canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusing the impugned order with reference to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I find, the court below in allowing the application for setting aside the exparte order has exercised its discretion to do so. There is no circumstance to show that the discretion was exercised improperly warranting interference by exercise of supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court. I find no interference with the order is called for. Revision is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv