IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 315 of 2010(O) ------------------------ CMA.99/2008 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM OS.209/2002 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, SOUTH PARAVUR (IA 327/2008) .................... PETITIONER ------------------- ROHINI, D/O.SUBHADRA AMMA, FROM SOUPARNIKA, KIZHAKKANEL CHERRY, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT COIAMBATORE, TAMILNADU STATE. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.SAIJU S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SYAMALA KUMARI, D/O.RUGMINI AMMA, NEDIYAVILA VEEDU, NEDUMGOLAM CHERRY, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR FOR R THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 315 of 2010(O) ------------------------ PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1:- COPY OF COMMON ORDER IN I.A.NO.327 OF 2008 AND I.A.NO.328 OF 2008 IN O.S.NO.209 OF 2002 OF THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR. EXT.P2:- COPY OF COMMON ORDER IN CMA NO.99 OF 2008 AND CMA NO.100 OF 2008 OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM. RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P.(C).No.315 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 11 th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The respondent filed O.S.No.209 of 2002 on the file of the Munsiff Magistrate Court, South Parur against the petitioner for realisation of money. The suit was decreed ex parte on 21.3.2006. The petitioner filed I.A.Nos.327 of 2008 and 328 of 2008 to set aside the ex parte decree and to condone the delay of 672 days in filing the application to set aside ex parte decree. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that she was residing in Coimbatore and that she was not properly informed about the proceedings in the suit. Counsel also pointed out that the relationship between the petitioner and her husband became strained. On a petition filed by her husband, an ex parte order for divorce was passed. O.P.(C).No.315 OF 2010 2 3. Before the court below, no evidence was adduced. The trial court as well as the appellate court did not believe the version put forward by the petitioner that she was in Coimbatore. The courts below held that no sufficient grounds have been made out to condone the delay. The petitioner failed to prove that she was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the court when the suit was taken up for hearing. 4. The findings rendered by the court below are findings of fact. In an Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there is no justification for interfering with the well considered order and judgment passed by the courts below. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Execution Proceedings are going on and the petitioner would be put to irreparable O.P.(C).No.315 OF 2010 3 injury unless the proceedings in execution are kept in abeyance. 6. Taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that six months' time can be granted to the petitioner to pay off the decree debt. The Execution Proceedings shall stand adjourned for six months. With the above facility to pay off the decree amount, the Original Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms