IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 185 of 2009() ---------------------------------- CMA.25/2007 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG OS.25/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------ BIJU.C.R, S/O. SITHUBAI, COOLI, RESIDING AT CHAIMARKUNDU, MUPLACHERY, PUNATHADY VILLAGE.P.O, PANATHUR, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. MR.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT ------------------------- K. ANGAPPU NAIK, S/O. KRISHNA NAIK, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT KUNDUPPALLY, PUNATHADY VILLAGE, P.O. RANIPURAM, HOSDURG TALUK. R1 BY ADV. MR.KODOTH SREEDHARAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.706/2009 IN CRP. NO.185/2009 DISMISSED 17/09/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.185 of 2009 - B --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2009 O R D E R Revision is directed against the judgment dated 31.10.2008 in C.M.A.No.25/2007 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Hosdurg. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.25/2006 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg. The above suit was one for specific performance of an agreement for sale and the respondent was the plaintiff. After filing the written statement, when the suit came up in the special list for trial, petitioner/defendant remained absent with the result an exparte decree was passed against him. Later, he moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the exparte decree with a petition to condone delay of 130 days. That application was opposed to by the respondent/plaintiff. In the enquiry on that application, the petitioner and one witness were examined. The learned Munsiff dafter considering the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides, holding that the petitioner has not made out sufficient cause to condone delay and set aside the exparte C.R.P.185 of 2009 - B 2 decree, dismissed the application. Appeal preferred against the order of the learned Munsiff before the Sub Court, Hosdurg, was also dismissed. Propriety and correctness of the decision so rendered by both the courts below concurrently is challenged in this revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find one more opportunity can be extended to the petitioner/defendant to have a decision of the suit on merit subject to compensating the injury that is likely to be caused to the respondent in setting aside the exparte decree dafter so much lapse of time. Taking note the decree had been passed as early as in 12.3.2007, I direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5.000/- as a condition precedent for setting aside the exparte decree. Cost ordered shall be paid to the counsel appearing for the respondent before this Court within a period of 15 days and a memo filed evidencing such payment on or before 5.10.2009. In default of payment of cost within the stipulated time, the revision shall stand dismissed without further orders. C.R.P.185 of 2009 - B 3 Revision disposed of as above. For report, post on 7.10.2009. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-