IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 CRP.No. 366 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/12/04 IN IA. 105/04 & 106/04 IN O.S..768/1996 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: DEFENDANTS. -------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, K.S.E.B,. VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, CHAVARA. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS: COUNTER PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS. ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING PARTNER, CAPITHAN EXPORTING COMPANY, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 2. CAPITHAN EXPORTING COMPANY, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ALPHONSE JOSEPH. ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU FOR R1&2 SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN FOR R1&2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.366 of 2006 --------------------------------------- Dated this 04th day of June, 2010 ORDER Petitioner was defendant in O.S.No.768 of 1996 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Kollam. That was a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of Rs.17,500/- from petitioner. Petitioner appeared in the court on 14-10-1996 and thereafter after four postings for filing written statement case was posted for issues on 29-01-1998 and then on 23-03-1998 but it was revealed that petitioner had not filed written statement. Petitioner was set ex parte and the case was posted for ex parte evidence on 27-03-1998 and 01-04-1998. Ex parte decree was passed on 02-04-1998. On 17-06-1998 petitioner filed application to set aside the ex parte decree. That application was allowed on condition of payment of cost to the respondent and the application was posted on 09-10- 1998 for payment of cost. Cost was not paid and hence the application was dismissed. For about 1888 days, petitioner did not move. Then it came with I.A.Nos.105 of 2004 and 106 of 2004 to review the order dated 09-10-1998 dismissing the application to set aside the ex parte decree for non payment of cost and to condone the delay of 1888 days in filing the application for review. Learned C.R.P.No.366 of 2006 : 2 : Munsiff dismissed the said applications as per order dated 20-12- 2004 which is under challenge in this revision petition. Learned counsel for petitioner states that it was because a close relative of the counsel for petitioner was admitted in the hospital (the relative later died) that the cost could not be paid within the time specified by the learned Munsiff. Later, a new counsel was appointed but it happened that the case file was misplaced. Hence the delay in filing the application for review. 2. This is a case where right from the beginning, lethargy on the part of petitioner in defending the suit is writ large. In spite of granting four postings petitioner did not file written statement on the impression given that written statement is filed, learned Munsiff posted the case for framing issues. Still then, written statement was not filed. It is seen that even after petitioner was given an opportunity to contest the case by reopening the decree on payment of cost, that opportunity was not availed by petitioner. Then came the application for review after 1888 days. In the meantime, respondent executed the ex parte decree, petitioner deposited Rs.24,244/- and amount has been withdrawn by respondent. Order dismissing I.A.No.1502 of 1998 on 09-10-1998 was appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. That course was also not taken by the petitioner. This court in Abdul Khader Vs. Surburban Chit Funds (P) Ltd C.R.P.No.366 of 2006 : 3 : (2006(1) KLT 749) has stated that an incorrect impression has gained ground that any and every error, inadequacy and contumacious lethargy in the conduct of civil cases can be corrected at later stages by approaching superior court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am inclined to think that lethargy on the part of petitioner demands no indulgence from this court. Learned Munsiff is correct in law and on facts in dismissing I.A.Nos.105 of 2004 and 106 of 2004. As such question of revising the said order does not arise. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-