IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 CRP.No. 269 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/03/2009 IN IA 350/09 IN OS.51/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------------------------- CHAMI, S/O.MARI, RESIDING AT PAZHAYAPATHA, KAMBRATHCHALLA, MUTHALAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT: ----------------------------------------------------------- RAMAN, S/O.PAZHANI, RESIDING AT KAMBRATHCHALLA, MUTHALAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT TIRIPUR. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, ALONG WITH CRP NO.270 OF 2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.No. 269 of 2009 ORDER ON I.A. NO.1018/2009 IN C.R.P. NO.269/2009 DISMISSED 22/05/2009. SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.Nos.269 & 270 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 22nd May, 2009 ORDER Revisions are filed against the orders passed by the learned Munsiff, Chittur allowing an application moved by the defendant against whom an ex parte decree was passed after condoning the delay in filing such application. There was a delay of 395 days in moving for setting aside the ex parte decree and no justifiable ground was made out by the defendant to set aside the ex parte decree, is the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner to assail the order impugned in the revisions. After going through the order passed by the learned Munsiff, I find, the applications for setting aside the ex parte decree and also for condonation of delay in moving the application were allowed on terms directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- to the plaintiff. After passing of the decree, the property covered by the suit has been conveyed through the court to the petitioner, is the further submission of the counsel over and above the challenge made that this is not a fit case for interfering with the decree passed ex parte. The learned Munsiff was satisfied with the evidence let in by the defendant to reach a conclusion that sufficient ground had been made out for condoning the delay and CRP Nos.269 & 270/09 - 2 - allowing of the application. The discretion exercised by the learned Munsiff is not shown to be perverse. I do not find any justifiable ground for interfering with the order passed by the learned Munsiff. I make it clear that the court below while exercising its discretion of awarding costs on disposal of suit, would take into account the expenses already incurred by the plaintiff for taking substituted service by publication against the respondent, and also the cost of stamp paper incurred pursuant to the ex parte decree which has been set aside, if ultimately the suit is decreed in his favour after adjudication of the disputes involved. Subject to the above observation, the Revision Petitions are dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE