IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 CRP.No. 1510 of 1998(I) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/03/1998 IN IA 349/98 IN OS.119/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/2ND DEFENDANT: --------------------- (*)URUMESE THALIATH, S/O.LONA THALIATH, THALIATH HOUSE, ERNAKULAM NORTH. (DIED. LR IMPLEADED AS ADDL.2ND PETITIONER) (*)ADDL.2ND PETITIONER: PINKU H. THALIATH, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.LATE URMESE THALIATH, RESIDING AT THALIATH HOUSE, POWER HOUSE EXTENSION ROAD, COCHIN - 682 018 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL REVISION PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 2.9.2002 IN CMP NO.4082/2002. BY ADV. SMT.PINKU H.THALIATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT NOS.1 & 3 TO 7: --------------- (***)1. JOHN, S/O.OUSEPH THALIATH, PUTHENPALLY MURIYIL HOUSE, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK.(DIED. LRS IMPLEADED) (**)2. KUMARAN, S/O.MANALIPPARAMBIL KURUMPAN, MUTTINAKAM, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK (DIED. LRS IMPLEADED) 3. ANDREWS, VEVUKKATTU HOUSE, MUTTINAKAM, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK . 4. SMT. ELISUA ALIAS SARAMMA, W/O.PUTHENVEETTIL DEVASSY, MUTTINAKAM, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. 5. VINCENT, THOTTUMKARA HOUSE, MUTTINAKAM, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. 6. LONAPPAN, KOLENCHERY HOUSE, MUTTINAKAM, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. CRP NO.1510/1998 2 7. MADATHA MARY, W/O.CHARIVAPPAAMBIL JOSEPH, MUTTINAKAM, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. (**)ADDL.RESPONDENTS: 8. KAUSALYA, W/O.MANALIPPARAMBIL KUMARAN, MUTTINAKAM, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK 9. VALSA, D/O. MANALIPPARAMBIL KUMARAN, MUTTINAKAM, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. THE SECOND RESPONDENT DIED, ADDL.RESPONDENTS 8 & 9 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED SECOND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 6.12.2007 ON IA NO.1637/2005. (***)ADDL.RESPONDENTS: 10. ELIZABETH JOHN, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.LATE JOHN, THALIATH HOUSE, BLUE HEAVEN, VARAPPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM, REP. BY HER BROTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI K.C.STANLEY, AGED 52 YARS, S/O.CHAKKAPPAN, KADICHEENI HOUSE, MALA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 11. MINU JOJO, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.JOJO AND DAUGHTER OF LATE JOHN, KARIKKAMPILLY HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY HER UNCLE AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI K.C.STANLEY, AGED 52 YARS, S/O.CHAKKAPPAN, KADICHEENI HOUSE, MALA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 12. TEENA JOBY, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.JOBY AND DAUGHTER OF LATE JOHN, ELUVATHINGAL HOUSE, CHOVOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP. BY HER UNCLE AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI K.C.STANLEY, AGED 52 YARS, S/O.CHAKKAPPAN, KADICHEENI HOUSE, MALA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THE FIRST RESPONDENT DIED, ADDL.RESPONDENTS 10 TO 12 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED FIRST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 2.8.2010 ON IA NO.1453/2010. ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH FOR ADDL.R8 TO R10 SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU FOR ADDL.R8 TO R10 SRI.JAGAN GEORGE FOR ADDL.R8 TO R10 SRI.P.G.PRAMOD FOR ADDL.R8 TO R10 SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL FOR ADDL.R8 TO R10 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.1510 of 1998 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2010. ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 05.02.1998 on I.A.No.349 of 1998 in O.S.No.119 of 1997 of the court of learned Munsiff, Paravoor. That is a suit for fixation of boundary. Petitioner/defendant No.2 was set exparte on 02.04.1997 and after about ten months, he applied to set aside the exparte order. Learned Munsiff vide impugned order dismissed the application observing that the application is filed ten months after exparte order and no acceptable explanation is stated to condone the delay. 2. It is contended that order under challenge is not correct in that there is no period of limitation for setting aside an exparte order. Learned counsel for additional respondents (legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1/plaintiff) states that they have no objection in allowing the Civil Revision Petition. 3. I have gone through the order under challenge. Application to set aside the exparte order was filed at a time when the suit was pending. There is no period of limitation prescribed to set aside the exparte order. In the circumstances court below ought to have allowed that application. CRP No.1510/1998 2 Resultantly this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. I.A.No.349 of 1998 in O.S.No.119 of 1997 of the court of learned Munsiff, Paravoor will stand allowed and the exparte order against petitioner/defendant No.2 is set aside. C.M.P.Nos.3087 and 4759 of 1998 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks CRP No.1510/1998 3 Thomas P.Joseph, J. C.R.P.No.1510 of 1998 ORDER 2nd August, 2010.