IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 CRP.No. 373 of 2010() --------------------- OS.240/2008 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------- RABECCA GEORGE,KUNNAMPURATHU HOUSE, PERINGALE VILLAGE,MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.V.SUNIL KUMAR (PANACHAMOODU) RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT: ----------------------------------- KOSHY MATHEW,KADAVIL MEDAYIL HOUSE, KAIPATTOR MURI,VALLICODE VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.373 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of July, 2010 ORDER This revision is in challenge of order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Mavelikkara on I.A.Nos.458 and 1747 of 2009 in O.S.No.240 of 2008 setting aside the ex parte decree against respondent after condoning the delay of one day in filing that application. Respondent sued petitioner for recovery of money on a dishonoured cheque and obtained an ex parte decree on 31-01-2009. That was followed by the applications referred to above, at the instance of respondent claiming that since his father was ill he was looking after the father and in the meantime from 28-02-2009 to 03-03-2009 he also fell ill due to fever and hence he could not appear in court on the relevant day. Applications were opposed by petitioner on various grounds including that delay involved is not of one day but more than that. It is contended that respondent had no sufficient cause for non appearance in court on 31-03-2009. In the meantime respondent filed I.A.No.131 of 2010 for amendment of I.A.No.458 of 2009 as the learned counsel for petitioner puts it, to incorporate certain other reasons also for his absence in court on the relevant day. C.R.P.No.373 of 2010 : 2 : Learned Sub Judge considered I.A.Nos.458 of 2009 and 1747 of 2009 and allowed the same vide the impugned order. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the delay involved is not one day. It is contended that there is no sufficient cause made out by the respondent. Learned counsel contends that petitioner is in a difficult situation, she is a widow and that attempt of respondent is to harass her by prolonging the litigation. 2. So far as delay is concerned, in the application it is stated that delay involved is of one day. Contention that more than one days' delay is involved stems from the date shown on the docket sheet of the application as if it was presented on 13-03-2009. Learned Sub Judge has observed from the records that applications were presented on 03-03-2009 and same were returned to cure some defects. While curing the defect, outer sheet of the application was replaced by the respondent with a new sheet on which the date '13-03-2009' was recorded. Learned Sub Judge has stated that presentation of the applications was on 03-03-2009 in which case the delay involved is only of one day as respondent claimed and the learned Sub Judge found. 3. It is true that I.A.No.131 of 2010 for amendment of C.R.P.No.373 of 2010 : 3 : I.A.No.458 of 2009 was not disposed of while disposing of I.A.No.458 of 2009 but, if that application could be allowed on the materials averred in the affidavit it was not absolutely necessary though, it was only proper to dispose of I.A.No.131 of 2010 also along with I.A.No.458 of 2009, if not before. Having regard to the circumstances stated I do not find any infirmity in learned Sub Judge not disposing of I.A.No.131 of 2010 before or while I.A.Nos.458 and 1747 of 2009 were disposed of. 4. So far as sufficiency of the cause stated is concerned, it is true that no evidence was recorded but the court is authorised to take evidence by affidavit under Order XIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the affidavit in support of the application respondent has stated that he was looking after his father, he also fell ill in the meantime and hence could not appear in court. Learned Sub Judge found no reason to disbelieve that statement and exercised the discretion in favour of granting an opportunity to respondent to contest the case. In so far as there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in that finding, interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is not warranted. 5. Now coming to the apprehension of petitioner that C.R.P.No.373 of 2010 : 4 : trial of the case may be delayed, it can be allayed by directing learned Sub Judge to expedite trial and disposal of the case. Resultantly this petition fails and it is dismissed. Learned Sub Judge is directed to expedite trial and disposal of the case. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-