IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 570 of 2011 ----------------------------- [CMA.NO.13/2011 DATED 29/11/2011 OF SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR AND COMMON ORDER IN I.A. NO.914/2010 AND 915/2010 DTD. 13/1/2011 IN OS.NO.145/2006 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, THALIPARAMBA] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PANACHIKKAL REJI MON, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 33 YEARS, PAYYAVOOR AMSOM AND DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SADASIVAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, MALAKANDI HOUSE, CHENGALAI AMSOM.P.O, PIN - 670 631. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.570 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 20th day of December, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.145 of 2006 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Thaliparamba. That is a suit for specific performance filed by the respondent. Petitioner, it is not disputed received summons in the suit, appeared and filed written statement and later remained absent. That was followed by an ex parte decree. After 20 months and 13 days of the prescribed time, petitioner filed applications - I.A.No.914 and 915 of 2010 to condone the delay and set aside the ex parte decree. On those applications petitioner was examined as PW1. Learned Munsiff found no reason to condone the delay and dismissed I.A.No.914 of 2010. Dismissal of I.A.No.915 of 2010 followed. The common order was confirmed by learned Sub Judge, Payyannur in C.M.A.No.13 of 2011. That judgment is under challenge. 2. It is contended by learned counsel that there was no agreement to sell the property and that execution of the agreement itself was disputed. According to learned counsel, it is just and proper that petitioner is given an opportunity to C.R.P.No.570 of 2011 -: 2 :- contest the case on merit. 3. The case pleaded by petitioner in support of the applications is that pending suit there was an out of Court settlement between petitioner and the respondent as per which respondent agreed to withdraw the suit and hence petitioner did not pursue his evidence in the suit. When examined as PW1, he stated that he was suffering from back pain during the relevant time and hence could not attend the Court. He did not produce any document to substantiate that. The so called settlement was not intimated to his counsel. After the ex parte decree was passed, petitioner admitted, receipt of notice on the draft sale deed and yet another notice on the application for executing a correction deed. In spite of receiving those notices petitioner did not respond. If actually petitioner had an out of Court settlement with respondent and the latter had agreed to withdraw the suit and hence petitioner was unaware of the decree, atleast when he received notices on the draft sale deed and application for execution of correction deed, petitioner should have approached the Court with appropriate application. That was not done. Hence the version petitioner explaining the delay cannot be accepted. C.R.P.No.570 of 2011 -: 3 :- 4. Litigants shall not have the impression that any latches on their part, however grave it may be, is to be condoned by superior Court at some stage. There should be finality for litigation. Law cannot come to the assistance of those who sleep over their rights. Having heard learned counsel and gone through the materials on record I am not inclined to interfere. The civil revision fails. It is dismissed. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-