IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 518 of 2011 ----------------------------- [IA .NO.1324/2011 IN OS.NO.160/2001 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, THALASSERY] .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- K.V. SAUDHAMINI, W/O. MADHAVAN MASTER, AGED 83 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANTHI BHAVAN, P.O. MAMBA, ANJARAKKANDY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY, SRI.RAJESH V.NAIR. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K. AHAMMED KUTTY, S/O. JAMALUDHIN, AGED 44 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT NAMBOKKIL PARAMBIL, P.O. MAMBA, ANJARAKKANDY, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. KODIKANDI PATHAKALAN ALIUMMA, W/O. HAMEED, AGED 40 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING NEAR -NELLUNI MOSQUE, P.O. NELLUNI, MATTANNUR. 3. KODIKANDY PATHAKALAN NABEESU, W/O. ABDUL KADER, NAMBOKKI PARAMBIL, ANJARAKANDY AMSOM, MAMBA DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.518 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011. ORDER This civil revision arises from the order dated 02.09.2011 on I.A.No.1324 of 2011 in O.S.No.160 of 2001 of the court of learned Munsiff, Thalassery. That application was filed by the respondents to set aside the exparte decree dated 31.03.2011 allowing recovery of compensation, fixation of boundary and injunction. In the affidavit in support of I.A.No.1324 of 2011 respondents stated that 1st respondent who was looking after the case suffered twisting of right leg on 02.03.2011 and that fact was intimated to the counsel, he recovered from it, went to the office of the counsel and learnt that the case was disposed of on 31.03.2011. Petitioner opposed the application contending that on 19.01.2011 all the documents of petitioner were marked and the case was adjourned for cross-examination to 05.03.2011 and then to 08.03.2011, 11.03.2011 and 17.03.2011. On that day counsel for respondents reported no instruction. That was followed by the exparte judgment and decree on 31.03.2011. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that no document is produced by the respondents to show that 1st respondent was laid up. 3. Assuming so, I must bear in mind that the suit with respect to immovable property and the title claimed by petitioner is contested by the respondents. In such circumstance respondents could be given an opportunity CRP No.518/2011 2 to contest the case on merit unless there is contumacious negligence or gross laches on their part. Here the application to set aside exparte decree has been filed within 30 days from the date of the decree. In the circumstances I am not inclined to think that there was contumacious negligence or gross laches on the part of respondents so that a hearing of the case should be denied to the respondents. 4. Having heard learned counsel and gone through the order under challenge I do not find reason to interfere. But the learned Munsiff has to expedite disposal of the case. Civil revision is closed directing the learned Munsiff to dispose of O.S.No.160 of 2001 as early as possible. I.A.No.2700 of 2011 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks