IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 126 of 2010 ----------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DTD. 27/01/2010 IN I.A. NO.391/2009 IN O.S. NO.111/2002 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA) ......... PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------- THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., KOKKAD BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL). RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. K.SOMARAJAN, NO.217, 4TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, AYYAPPA TEMPLE, JALAHALLY, BANGALORE. ("REVATHY", AREEPPALLY P.O., KARAVALLOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK). 2. LEELAVATHY, W/O. SOMARAJAN, 4TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, AYYAPPA TEMPLE, JALAHALLY, BANGALORE. ("REVATHY", AREEPPALLY P.O., KARAVALLOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK), (REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER N.AJITH KUMAR,'SHEEJA VILASAM', NEDIYARA KURUVIKONAM, ANCHEL). BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= C.R.P. No. 126 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 O R D E R In this revision petition the petitioner bank assails the order of the court below dated 27-1-2010 in I.A. No.391 of 2009 in O.S. No.111 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Kottarakkara whereby the court below set aside the ex parte order and restored the suit to file, enabling the respondents to contest the suit on merits. 2. The suit was for recovery of money. An ex parte decree was passed for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,63,585/- from the respondents. It is pointed out that the mortgaged plaint schedule properties have been sold and no purpose will be served by setting aside the ex parte decree to enable the respondents to contest the suit on merits. 3. The specific contention taken by the petitioner is that though summons were sought to be served on the respondents several times, on all those occasions they deliberately evaded the same. There is no justification for CRP 126/10 2 the claim that they may be permitted to contest the matter on merits. The ex parte order was passed due to their default and laches and, therefore, the impugned order be set aside. 4. The court below has chosen to exercise its discretion and granted an opportunity to the respondents to contest the suit on merits. As to consequence of doing so is to be considered later. That is not a ground to set aside the order. Reserving the right of the petitioner to raise all his contentions, this revision petition is dismissed. There will be a direction to the court below to dispose of the suit as early as possible, at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.