IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 496 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/07/2009 IN IA 2825/02 & 2826 IN OS.342/2000 of MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.P. PAVITHRAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, P.O. KEECHERI, KUZHAKUNNU AMSOM, PALA DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KUTTIALIPRATH KUNHAMINA, D/O. AYISSU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUZHAKUNNU AMSOM, PALA DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. 2. KUTTIALIPRATH IBRAHIM, S/O. AYISSU, AGED 47 YEARS, MUZHAKUNNU AMSOM, PALA DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- C.R.P.No.496 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- ORDER Revision is filed by the plaintiff in O.S No.342 of 2000 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Koothuparamba against the order passed by the learned Munsiff setting aside the exparte decree passed in that suit. Suit was one for perpetual prohibitory injunction. The second defendant in the suit moved an application for setting aside the exparte decree with a petition to condone delay. After enquiry, the learned Munsiff allowed that application on terms. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. When the case was pending, petitioner had issued a notice to the second defendant by C.R.P.No.496 OF 2009 Page numbers registered post informing of the posting date of the case and after acknowledgment of that notice too she remained absent, submits the counsel. The learned counsel also submits that the second defendant had suppressed the receipt of that notice in the application moved for setting aside the exparte decree. Relying on “Pundlik J Patil v Executive Engineer” (2009 (1) KLT SN 25 SC) the learned counsel submits that if any false or incorrect statement is made in the application seeking condonation of delay, that itself is sufficient for rejection of that application. In the present case, the application was filed to condone the delay of 321 days to entertain the application to set aside the exparte decree by the second defendant, submits the counsel. Perusing the order passed by the court below, it is noticed that the learned Munsiff has taken note that the second respondent is a pardanishan lady and her C.R.P.No.496 OF 2009 Page numbers case that she had engaged her brother to conduct the case is believable. It was also noticed that her counsel had not informed her of the posting of the case. Taking into account all those aspects, the court exercised its discretion in favour of the second defendant to set aside the expate decree on terms. She was directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as cost to the petitioner / plaintiff as a condition precedent for setting aside the exparte decree. The order has been passed in exercise of the judicial discretion vested with the court below, and unless it is shown to be perverse, it is not open for this court to interfere with that order. I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff. Even assuming that there was some suppression or nonmentioning of the acceptance of notice in the statements made in the petition to condone delay for setting aside the exparte decree in the given facts of the case, I C.R.P.No.496 OF 2009 Page numbers find, it cannot be considered as fatal. There is no merit in the case, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE vdv P.A TO JUDGE