IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 CRP.No. 24 of 2011() -------------------- CMA.17/2009 OF DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM OS.790/2005 OF ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ANITHA, W/O.SUBHADRA AJITHA BHAVANAM, THAZHUTHALA CHERRY KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------ REMA RAJENDRABABU, D/O.DHAYAVATHY EDATHITTAYIL, SAKTHIKULANGARA KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 581. ADV. SRI.P.K.BABU FOR R1 SRI.V.SALIM RAJ MOHAN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------- C.R.P.No.24 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.790 of 2005 on the file of the court of the Additional Munsiff of Kollam. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 20.2.2006. The petitioner filed I.A.Nos.1827 of 2008 and 1828 of 2008 to set aside the ex-parte decree and to condone the delay of 411 days in filing the application. The trial court dismissed the application as per the order dated 6th January, 2009. The petitioner filed C.M.A.No.17 of 2009 before the District Court, Kollam. The appellate court observed in paragraph 12 thus : "At this juncture, reference to one aspect is essential. Though, the appellant was unable to show any reason not even plausible one to condone the delay and for getting ex-parte decree set aside, in an endeavour to do justice I asked the counsel whether the appellant is prepared to furnish security C.R.P.No.24/2011 2 for the due performance of the decree, that may be passed and if she is prepared, orders assailed can be set aside, so as to do justice to the parties. To that proposal, appellant was not willing. That shows that contention of the respondent that the only intention of the appellant is to protract the matter is true." 2. On the ground that the petitioner herein was not prepared to furnish security for the decree amount, the appellate court dismissed the appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to furnish security to the satisfaction of the trial court for the decree amount. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent also. 4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a widow and also taking note of the suggestion made by the appellate court, I am of the view that the revision can be allowed and C.R.P.No.24/2011 3 the ex-parte decree passed against the petitioner can be set aside on condition of the petitioner furnishing sufficient security for the decree amount. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as follows: (i) The order passed by the trial court in I.A.No.1827 of 2008 and 1828 of 2008 as well as the judgment of the appellate court in C.M.A.No.17 of 2009 are set aside. (ii) I.A.Nos.1827 of 2008 and 1828 of 2008 in O.S.No.790 of 2005 are allowed on condition that the petitioner shall furnish security for the decree amount to the satisfaction of the trial court within a period of two months from today. It is sufficient, if immovable property is offered as security. C.R.P.No.24/2011 4 (iii) If the petitioner furnishes security as aforesaid, the trial court shall proceed to decide the suit on the merits expeditiously. (iv) If the petitioner fails to furnish security as aforesaid, the order and judgment passed by the court below will stand and the Civil Revision Petition shall be treated as dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl