IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6685 of 2007(U) ------------------------- OS.214/1997 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- AZEEZ, AGED 45, S/O. MUHAMMED, AMBALATHVEETTIL VATTACHIRA HOUSE, PAINKANNIYOOR DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.GINESH.P. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- PUDUVEETTIL UMMER, S/O. KUNJAVU, VENMANADU AMSOM, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C).NO.6685 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated 20th February 2009 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P5 order in C.M.A.39/2004 by Additional District Judge, Thrissur dismissing the appeal filed against Ext.P3 order passed by Sub court, Thrissur in I.A.803/2003 in O.S.214/1997, an application to condone the delay of 335 days in filing the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure as well as I.A.802/2003 the application filed under Order IX of Rule 13 to set aside ex-parte decree. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. Case of the petitioner is that he had been in Gulf and no summons was served on him and therefore courts below should have condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte decree. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the orders of the courts below, I find no WPC 6685/07 2 reason to interfere with the order. Ex-parte order can be set aside only if, the petitioner could successfully establish sufficient ground to condone the delay of 335 days and valid reason for his absence. Though petitioner raised a contention that he was in Gulf, no evidence was adduced to prove that he was in Gulf during the relevant period. Even copy of the passport was not produced. It is in such circumstances, learned Sub Judge dismissed the application which was confirmed by the learned District Judge. When the petitioner did not establish any valid and sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 335 days, dismissal of the application is perfectly correct. I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.